[DRAFT] Protection of State Immunity

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Protection of State Immunity
Category: Political Stability | Strenght: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Realising that for a state to be haled into the courts of another state is deeply offensive,

Emphasising the need for WA member states to recognise the immunities that come with national sovereignty,

Distraught that failure to reasonably recognise the state immunity of fellow WA member states can cause severe tension and conflict,

Expressing the need to balance the right to state immunity with the interests of victims seeking to sue a WA member state,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "state" as:
   
   1. a state and its government;
   2. one of its political subdivisions;
   3. any separate legal entity that is an organ of the state and/or its political subdivisions, or of which the state and/or its political subdivisions own a majority stake; or
   4. any employee of the aforementioned acting within the scope of their employment,
2. Defines "state immunity" as the right of a state not to be subject to another state's jurisdiction, either:
   
   1. by being a named party in a case tried in another state's courts; or
   2. by having a case which requests that another state's courts affect their rights, property, interests and/or activities,
3. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "host nation" as the nation seeking to exercise its jurisdiction over another state, and "target nation" as the state being subjected to this exercise of jurisdiction,
4. Directs the Independent Adjudicative Office (IAO) to, if requested to do so by any WA member state, assess whether a WA member states qualifies as:
   
   1. "a state sponsor of international terrorism"; or
   2. lacking an "independent judiciary", which is defined as any judiciary that can reasonably be expected to try cases involving its state fairly and independently,
5. Requires WA member states to recognise the state immunity of all WA member states, except for cases where:
   
   1. the target nation, as assessed by the IAO, qualifies as a state sponsor of international terrorism;
   2. the target nation, as assessed by the IAO, lacks an independent judiciary;
   3. the target nation consented to the trial, by written or verbal communication to the court, contract and/or international agreement;
   4. the target nation participated in the trial beyond what could be reasonably construed as necessary to exercise a valid claim of state immunity; necessary actions include notifying the court about the claim of immunity and any fact finding necessary for a valid claim of immunity;
   5. the target nation initiated the proceedings, including cases where it is subject to a valid and related counterclaim to its proceedings;
   6. the alleged wrongdoing happened in relation to commercial activity in the host nation between the target nation and a citizen of any state/legal entity from any state, except for activity between the target nation and the host nation itself;
   7. the case concerns an employment contract between the target nation and any person, whose employment requires their presence in the host nation, excluding any person that enjoys diplomatic immunity,
6. Clarifies that this resolution in no way affects states' rights and duties with regards to international courts and tribunals.

OOC: Please provide any feedback below. If you have any questions about state immunity, do feel free to ask them as well. This proposal has been based on existing national and international legislation.

Also, it is important to note that countries being able to refuse to pay any damages awarded by foreign courts is not a sufficient substitute for state immunity, because it (1) still causes international tension; and (2) countries can still enforce such awards (e.g. how the US enforces judicial decisions against North Korea).

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Protection of State Immunity
Category: Political Stability | Strenght: Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Realising that for a state to be haled into the courts of another state is deeply offensive,

Emphasising the need for WA member states to recognise the immunities that come with national sovereignty,

Distraught that failure to reasonably recognise the state immunity of fellow WA member states can cause severe tension and conflict,

Expressing the need to balance the right to state immunity with the interests of victims seeking to sue a WA member state,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "state" as:
   
   1. a state and its government;
   2. one of its political subdivisions;
   3. any separate legal entity that is an organ of the state and/or its political subdivisions, or of which the state and/or its political subdivisions own a majority stake; or
   4. any employee of the aforementioned acting within the scope of their employment,
2. Defines "state immunity" as the right of a state not to be subject to another state's jurisdiction, either:
   
   1. by being a named party in a case tried in another state's courts; or
   2. by having a case which requests that another state's courts affect their rights, property, interests and/or activities,
3. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "host nation" as the nation seeking to exercise its jurisdiction over another state, and "target nation" as the state being subjected to this exercise of jurisdiction,
4. Directs the Independent Adjudicative Office (IAO) to, if requested to do so by any WA member state, assess whether a WA member states qualifies as:
   
   1. "a state sponsor of international terrorism"; or
   2. lacking an "independent judiciary", which is defined as any judiciary that can reasonably be expected to try cases involving its state fairly and independently,
5. Requires WA member states to recognise the state immunity of all WA member states, except for cases where:
   
   1. the target nation, as assessed by the IAO, qualifies as a state sponsor of international terrorism;
   2. the target nation, as assessed by the IAO, lacks an independent judiciary;
   3. the target nation consented to the trial, by written or verbal communication to the court, contract and/or international agreement;
   4. the target nation participated in the trial beyond what could be reasonably construed as necessary to exercise a valid claim of state immunity, including, but not limited to, notifying the court about the claim of immunity and any fact finding necessary for a valid claim of immunity;
   5. the target nation initiated the proceedings, including cases where it is subject to a valid and related counterclaim to its proceedings;
   6. the allegation against the state is industrial espionage;
   7. the alleged wrongdoing happened in relation to commercial activity in the host nation between the target nation and a citizen of any state/legal entity from any state, not including the host nation itself;
   8. the case concerns an employment contract between the target nation and any person, whose employment requires their presence in the host nation, excluding any person that enjoys diplomatic immunity,
6. Clarifies that this resolution in no way affects states' rights and duties with regards to international courts and tribunals.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Bumping.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Is there - in the NSWA, not talking of RL here - any way for one nation to sue another to begin with? I mean, sure, you can say you sue the Separatist Peoples for something, but they can just go "LOL, no" and ignore you trying to get them to answer in court, if there is no such thing codified in WA law.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Is there - in the NSWA, not talking of RL here - any way for one nation to sue another to begin with? I mean, sure, you can say you sue the Separatist Peoples for something, but they can just go "LOL, no" and ignore you trying to get them to answer in court, if there is no such thing codified in WA law.

OOC: Well, my courts don't need permission from international law to enter judgements against Seperatist Peoples if I granted them the authority to do so under national law. While Sep may not show up in my state's courts, but then my courts would grant a default judgement in favour of the plaintaiff due to failure of the defendant to show up in court. Sep may refuse to pay, but then the plaintiff may request that Sep's assets in my state (e.g. bank accounts, ships, etc.) be seized to enforce the judgement. This causes a lot of conflict, which is why I submitted this proposal.

[Kenmoria]

“You have a ‘political subdivions’ rather than ‘political subdivisions’ in clause 1c. That’s the only issue I can see so far.”

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

“You have a ‘political subdivions’ rather than ‘political subdivisions’ in clause 1c. That’s the only issue I can see so far.”

OOC: Amended, thanks.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Question, do you intend this immunity to extend to someone suing a state in that states own courts, or are you intending to address solely being sued in a foreign state?

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Question, do you intend this immunity to extend to someone suing a state in that states own courts, or are you intending to address solely being sued in a foreign state?

OOC: This proposal extends only to governments being sued in foreign courts. Although it isn't uncommon for states to be immune from suit in their own courts too (which is called "sovereign immunity"), that is outside the scope here (and in my opinion a matter of national - not WA - concern).

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Question, do you intend this immunity to extend to someone suing a state in that states own courts, or are you intending to address solely being sued in a foreign state?

OOC: This proposal extends only to governments being sued in foreign courts. Although it isn't uncommon for states to be immune from suit in their own courts too (which is called "sovereign immunity"), that is outside the scope here (and in my opinion a matter of national - not WA - concern).

OOC: I am well acquainted with sovereign immunity. I just wanted to ask, because the WA has already stripped sovereign immunity from member states (See Administrative Compliance Act and The Rule of Law) when sued in their own courts.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: This proposal extends only to governments being sued in foreign courts. Although it isn't uncommon for states to be immune from suit in their own courts too (which is called "sovereign immunity"), that is outside the scope here (and in my opinion a matter of national - not WA - concern).

OOC: I am well acquainted with sovereign immunity. I just wanted to ask, because the WA has already stripped sovereign immunity from member states (See Administrative Compliance Act and The Rule of Law) when sued in their own courts.

OOC: Alright, thanks for the background here. I'm suprised sovereign immunity is regulated by the WA to be honest, but I suppose that's a discussion for another time.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Bumping this back to the first page.

[The New Nordic Union]

'So, the government cannot be named in a case, but the state itself can?'

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

'So, the government cannot be named in a case, but the state itself can?'

Ambassador, although I suspect the definition would be clear, if interpreted in a reasonable manner, as to referring to both, I have altered clause 1(a) to remove any doubt.

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

[The New Nordic Union]

'So, the government cannot be named in a case, but the state itself can?'

Ambassador, although I suspect the definition would be clear, if interpreted in a reasonable manner, as to referring to both, I have altered clause 1(a) to remove any doubt.

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

'Then we stand opposed. Any state, at least when acting not in a sovereign/public capacity, but in a private one inside our borders, should be subject to the same rights and duties, which shall be enforcable, as every other person.'

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Ambassador, although I suspect the definition would be clear, if interpreted in a reasonable manner, as to referring to both, I have altered clause 1(a) to remove any doubt.

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

'Then we stand opposed. Any state, at least when acting not in a sovereign/public capacity, but in a private one inside our borders, should be subject to the same rights and duties, which shall be enforcable, as every other person.'

Ambassador, what kind of situations are you referring to? Note that commercial activity and employment contracts by the target nation in the host nation are already exempt.

g. the alleged wrongdoing happened in relation to commercial activity in the host nation between the target nation and a citizen of any state/legal entity from any state, not including the host nation itself;
h. the case concerns an employment contract between the target nation and any person, whose employment requires their presence in the host nation, excluding any person that enjoys diplomatic immunity,

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

EDIT OOC: Also, note that if a state employee acts in a private capacity, that is, outside "the scope of their employment", they do not enjoy state immunity.

[The New Nordic Union]

'Then we stand opposed. Any state, at least when acting not in a sovereign/public capacity, but in a private one inside our borders, should be subject to the same rights and duties, which shall be enforcable, as every other person.'

Ambassador, what kind of situations are you referring to? Note that commercial activity and employment contracts by the target nation in the host nation are already exempt.

g. the alleged wrongdoing happened in relation to commercial activity in the host nation between the target nation and a citizen of any state/legal entity from any state, not including the host nation itself;
h. the case concerns an employment contract between the target nation and any person, whose employment requires their presence in the host nation, excluding any person that enjoys diplomatic immunity,

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

EDIT OOC: Also, note that if a state employee acts in a private capacity, that is, outside "the scope of their employment", they do not enjoy state immunity.

'While commercial activity is exempt, non-commercial activity is not. For example, the Nation of X owns a building in the Nordic Union, of which it uses 90% as their embassy and official residence for staff; the other 10% are rented out to private persons. We would be hard pressed to qualify this activity as commercial. The Nation X also owns a piece of woodland for purely recreational purposes, which by Nordic law must be open to the public; however, maintenance and safety of ways are still the responsibility of the forest's owner. In both cases naming the nation as plaintiff following wrongs, like breach of contract in the first, and negligent upkeep ot he forest ways, in the second instance, would be prohibited by this proposed resolution.'

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This proposal extends only to governments being sued in foreign courts. Although it isn't uncommon for states to be immune from suit in their own courts too (which is called "sovereign immunity"), that is outside the scope here (and in my opinion a matter of national - not WA - concern).

OOC: I am well acquainted with sovereign immunity. I just wanted to ask, because the WA has already stripped sovereign immunity from member states (See Administrative Compliance Act and The Rule of Law) when sued in their own courts.

Ooc: only some of it!

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Ambassador, what kind of situations are you referring to? Note that commercial activity and employment contracts by the target nation in the host nation are already exempt.


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

EDIT OOC: Also, note that if a state employee acts in a private capacity, that is, outside "the scope of their employment", they do not enjoy state immunity.

'While commercial activity is exempt, non-commercial activity is not. For example, the Nation of X owns a building in the Nordic Union, of which it uses 90% as their embassy and official residence for staff; the other 10% are rented out to private persons. We would be hard pressed to qualify this activity as commercial. The Nation X also owns a piece of woodland for purely recreational purposes, which by Nordic law must be open to the public; however, maintenance and safety of ways are still the responsibility of the forest's owner. In both cases naming the nation as plaintiff following wrongs, like breach of contract in the first, and negligent upkeep ot he forest ways, in the second instance, would be prohibited by this proposed resolution.'

Ambassador, I find both examples to be unconvincing. Let me address both and then close my letter with some general remarks.

Situation 1 (rent):

• I would say that renting apartments is a commercial activity, regardless of the multifunctionality of the building. The proposal exempts all commercial activity, not merely activity in commercial building.
• Even if this isn't the case, the tenants could negotiate a clause into the rental agreement allowing them to sue in the Nordic courts, pursuant to clause 5(c).

Situation 2 (woodland):

• The situation is incredibly improbable. Why would a state own woodlands in another country for "recreational purposes"...? (That's a rhetorical question.)
• You can still sue Nation X in its own courts and request they apply Nordic law (choice of law). If they do not have an independent judiciary, you can sue them in your courts pursuant to clause 5(b).
• If you really forsee this being a problem, you can simply prohibit the sale of Nordic woodlands to foreign states.

General remarks:
Both situations are incredibly niche; the fact that they serve as prime examples of why this resolution shouldn't pass only tells me enough. In addition, nothing is stopping you from passing a WA resolution dealing with these problems specifically. I can hardly see these examples as being good faith reasons to oppose. This proposal greatly benefits the international community by preventing international tension and conflict, and the costs you set forth are miniscule in comparison.

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

[The New Nordic Union]

'While commercial activity is exempt, non-commercial activity is not. For example, the Nation of X owns a building in the Nordic Union, of which it uses 90% as their embassy and official residence for staff; the other 10% are rented out to private persons. We would be hard pressed to qualify this activity as commercial. The Nation X also owns a piece of woodland for purely recreational purposes, which by Nordic law must be open to the public; however, maintenance and safety of ways are still the responsibility of the forest's owner. In both cases naming the nation as plaintiff following wrongs, like breach of contract in the first, and negligent upkeep ot he forest ways, in the second instance, would be prohibited by this proposed resolution.'

Ambassador, I find both examples to be unconvincing. Let me address both and then close my letter with some general remarks.

Situation 1 (rent):

• I would say that renting apartments is a commercial activity, regardless of the multifunctionality of the building. The proposal exempts all commercial activity, not merely activity in commercial building.
• Even if this isn't the case, the tenants could negotiate a clause into the rental agreement allowing them to sue in the Nordic courts, pursuant to clause 5(c).

Situation 2 (woodland):

• The situation is incredibly improbable. Why would a state own woodlands in another country for "recreational purposes"...? (That's a rhetorical question.)
• You can still sue Nation X in its own courts and request they apply Nordic law (choice of law). If they do not have an independent judiciary, you can sue them in your courts pursuant to clause 5(b).
• If you really forsee this being a problem, you can simply prohibit the sale of Nordic woodlands to foreign states.

General remarks:
Both situations are incredibly niche; the fact that they serve as prime examples of why this resolution shouldn't pass only tells me enough. In addition, nothing is stopping you from passing a WA resolution dealing with these problems specifically. I can hardly see these examples as being good faith reasons to oppose. This proposal greatly benefits the international community by preventing international tension and conflict, and the costs you set forth are miniscule in comparison.

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

'They are not niche, they merely provide examples for concerns that arise from states acting in private capacities, especially private ownership of (immobile) property, in other states, were it would be unfair to treat them any different from other persons in their stead. This unfairness is even more exemplified by the fact that the target nation is free to initiate proceedings, whereas this right is taken away from anyone else. International tension and conflict will just as easily be averted if the nations in questions agree to follow the laws of the host nation, and accept the rule of law.'

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Ambassador, I find both examples to be unconvincing. Let me address both and then close my letter with some general remarks.

Situation 1 (rent):

• I would say that renting apartments is a commercial activity, regardless of the multifunctionality of the building. The proposal exempts all commercial activity, not merely activity in commercial building.
• Even if this isn't the case, the tenants could negotiate a clause into the rental agreement allowing them to sue in the Nordic courts, pursuant to clause 5(c).

Situation 2 (woodland):

• The situation is incredibly improbable. Why would a state own woodlands in another country for "recreational purposes"...? (That's a rhetorical question.)
• You can still sue Nation X in its own courts and request they apply Nordic law (choice of law). If they do not have an independent judiciary, you can sue them in your courts pursuant to clause 5(b).
• If you really forsee this being a problem, you can simply prohibit the sale of Nordic woodlands to foreign states.

General remarks:
Both situations are incredibly niche; the fact that they serve as prime examples of why this resolution shouldn't pass only tells me enough. In addition, nothing is stopping you from passing a WA resolution dealing with these problems specifically. I can hardly see these examples as being good faith reasons to oppose. This proposal greatly benefits the international community by preventing international tension and conflict, and the costs you set forth are miniscule in comparison.

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

'They are not niche, they merely provide examples for concerns that arise from states acting in private capacities, especially private ownership of (immobile) property, in other states, were it would be unfair to treat them any different from other persons in their stead. This unfairness is even more exemplified by the fact that the target nation is free to initiate proceedings, whereas this right is taken away from anyone else. International tension and conflict will just as easily be averted if the nations in questions agree to follow the laws of the host nation, and accept the rule of law.'

Ambassador, I thank you for your reply, but note that it fails to address most of the points raised in my previous letter (besides my comment on the nicheness). It remains entirely unclear why states would own private property for non-commercial purposes in other states and how that poses any even slightly significant issue for this proposal. And you may not consider it fair that a government is treated differently than a person, but such unequal treatment is not at all unique to this proposal.

I have discussed the objection with a couple of experienced WA ambassadors, and they agreed the issues were too niche to be considered a reason against this proposal. If you do consider it as such, feel free to vote against the resolution. The Holy Empire will not continue to bicker about this supposed problem, considering that The New Nordic Union will not be voting in favour anyway. I welcome any suggestions for improvements.

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

[The New Nordic Union]

'They are not niche, they merely provide examples for concerns that arise from states acting in private capacities, especially private ownership of (immobile) property, in other states, were it would be unfair to treat them any different from other persons in their stead. This unfairness is even more exemplified by the fact that the target nation is free to initiate proceedings, whereas this right is taken away from anyone else. International tension and conflict will just as easily be averted if the nations in questions agree to follow the laws of the host nation, and accept the rule of law.'

Ambassador, I thank you for your reply, but note that it fails to address most of the points raised in my previous letter (besides my comment on the nicheness). It remains entirely unclear why states would own private property for non-commercial purposes in other states and how that poses any even slightly significant issue for this proposal. And you may not consider it fair that a government is treated differently than a person, but such unequal treatment is not at all unique to this proposal.

I have discussed the objection with a couple of experienced WA ambassadors, and they agreed the issues were too niche to be considered a reason against this proposal. If you do consider it as such, feel free to vote against the resolution. The Holy Empire will not continue to bicker about this supposed problem, considering that The New Nordic Union will not be voting in favour anyway. I welcome any suggestions for improvements.

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

'Why would they not? If they can, they are free to do so. Could be an asset. Could be for educational purposes. As far as we are aware, one does not need a reason to own property. The issue is, that anyone coming into contact with these properties would be hindered from exercising their rights in this regard. We remain oppossed unless situations like these, in which states act as any other private entity would, are exempted completely.'

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Ambassador, I thank you for your reply, but note that it fails to address most of the points raised in my previous letter (besides my comment on the nicheness). It remains entirely unclear why states would own private property for non-commercial purposes in other states and how that poses any even slightly significant issue for this proposal. And you may not consider it fair that a government is treated differently than a person, but such unequal treatment is not at all unique to this proposal.

I have discussed the objection with a couple of experienced WA ambassadors, and they agreed the issues were too niche to be considered a reason against this proposal. If you do consider it as such, feel free to vote against the resolution. The Holy Empire will not continue to bicker about this supposed problem, considering that The New Nordic Union will not be voting in favour anyway. I welcome any suggestions for improvements.

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

'Why would they not? If they can, they are free to do so. Could be an asset. Could be for educational purposes. As far as we are aware, one does not need a reason to own property. The issue is, that anyone coming into contact with these properties would be hindered from exercising their rights in this regard. We remain oppossed unless situations like these, in which states act as any other private entity would, are exempted completely.'

OOC: Thank you for the suggestion. I would note that the current examples advanced in support of the weird notion that is being pushed are still incredibly niche and that I have not seen an example that suggests otherwise. In addition, both the examples are not actually a problem per my original comments, where I addressed both of them on a case-specific basis. There was also never an explanation as to how choice of law cannot address such a problem, which could, in addition, be mandated under a WA resolution if this is found to be necessary.

The suggested addition is in my opinion vague and overly broad and as such I will not implement it, unless such an addition receives enough support. Although I respect your view on the matter, I will not further debate it because I do not expect to get the support of The New Nordic Union. I, of course, continue to welcome suggestions towards improving the proposal.

[Maowi]

"Why is industrial espionage the only category of espionage excepted?"

OOC: Your final clause should say "resolution", not "proposal".

[Bananaistan]

OOC: We should discuss whether the area is already covered by GAR#374 which sets out that states, as entities or institutions, must be held accountable under domestic laws, and whether the exceptions set out here contradict this.