[SUBMITTED] Convention on International Arbitration

[Dengist China]

OOC:

Enforce them how, exactly? International police?

The real life ICC works this way because that's just how the international system works. If you want a more effective system annex all of the world's countries and form a world-wide government. As long as we need to have relationships between sovereign states that retain independence and autonomy over most of their affairs (which is what we have here with our WA), this is how international conflict resolution is resolved. We have organs that serve to smooth things over and deliver understandings about certain matters, and it is up to the nations of the world to do something to make these understandings effective, such as economic sanctions. If no one is willing to abide by the understandings of the CoURT, then what else would it be able to do, from a political standpoint?

It's just how international politics works. If no major nation wants to do something, it doesn't get done, no matter how righteous it is.

Which is exactly my point. This brand of international politics that aligns with the real world one is terrible. As such, we should require that member states abide by COURT warrants and such other things. There wouldn't need to be an enforcement mechanism because if they complied and then refused to abide by a COURT ruling, then they'd be in non-compliance.

[Ubertas]

I appreciate all the discourse surrounding my proposal. It heartens me that so many folks care about it. However, as it stands, I will not be adding in mechanisms forcing member nations to honor arrest warrants. Firstly, I'd like to caution folks on calling this an "ICC," my cheeky acronym, and the past drafts of this resolution aside. While it handles criminal events, it is not a court in the traditional sense. This functions best, as Cretox outlined earlier:

Yet the (COURT) looks to function more like a commission, responding to complaints and petitions by recommending not just punishments, but broader reforms, with its recommendations being nonbinding...a commission of some kind would better reflect the broadness and unintrusiveness of its powers.

It seeks to independently handle facts and evidence of an event, decide what is and is not lacking, and then coordinate with member nations to rectify those shortcomings. This can be sanctions; it can also indeed be arrest warrants. But again, I firmly believe the World Assembly has no business ordering around the judicial systems of independent member states. How would this be enforced? Nations can adopt this, sure, but who would enforce it? The member states? That would either empower larger nations to infringe upon the sovereignty of the weak for the sake of upholding international law (which would just re-create the situation Dengist China worries about) or empower the WA to do the same. This would make the resolution self-contradictory, as breaches of international conduct would have to be committed to ensure international conduct is upheld.

OOC:

Enforce them how, exactly? International police?

The real life ICC works this way because that's just how the international system works. If you want a more effective system annex all of the world's countries and form a world-wide government. As long as we need to have relationships between sovereign states that retain independence and autonomy over most of their affairs (which is what we have here with our WA), this is how international conflict resolution is resolved. We have organs that serve to smooth things over and deliver understandings about certain matters, and it is up to the nations of the world to do something to make these understandings effective, such as economic sanctions. If no one is willing to abide by the understandings of the CoURT, then what else would it be able to do, from a political standpoint?

It's just how international politics works. If no major nation wants to do something, it doesn't get done, no matter how righteous it is.

Which is exactly my point. This brand of international politics that aligns with the real world one is terrible. As such, we should require that member states abide by COURT warrants and such other things. There wouldn't need to be an enforcement mechanism because if they complied and then refused to abide by a COURT ruling, then they'd be in non-compliance.

Asking member states to abide by these rulings would create further issues. If state A adopts the COURT resolution and thereby participates in it and state B does not, does member state A have the authority to carry out or enforce the arrest of a person from or in member state B? A WA member state shouldn't have to decide between falling out of compliance with a resolution they adopt and infringing upon the sovereignty of another member. Such things are therefore best left to the international community to work through outside the WA.

Under the current framework, this does not matter. The COURT issues its decisions, and the world or private citizens can respond to them as they see fit. If state A wants to see state B dealt with, they can assemble their own "coalition of the willing" and do so as sovereign entities. The WA has no place in that. Now if state B feels that this too violated their sovereignty or even violated a resolution both A and B adopted (let's say International War Crimes), then state B may opt in if they choose and bring that to the attention of the COURT. Then the COURT can arbitrate, and the world can decide collectively how they want to handle that information.

But I do not believe it is the WA's purview to enforce, mandate, or decide things like arrests. It's one thing to have members adopt a resolution and change their internal policies to comply with what they are willingly adopting, such as the Against Torture resolution. It is another to put into place a mandate that forces the WA to infringe upon the unwilling, thereby violating the principles the new GA was founded on. I think it's entirely fine for a future GA resolution to ask member states to coordinate arrests and police between adoptees, but adding that here would be outside the scope of the resolution.

[Dengist China]

As for the above, I can't say I agree. If you do not member state A enforcing this resolution on folks from non-compliant member state B, then make it so there is no requirement for nations to arrest individuals who are from non-compliant member states if that's such a worry. As it stands, this resolution does nothing.

[Ubertas]

These comments aside, as the kids say, chat: is there anything else?

[Canadianers]

"Impossible Amelioration of Justice" is a condition meeting the following standards:

There credibly lacks infrastructure, will, or due process to deliver swift and immediate justice to plaintiffs subjected to perceived extraordinary and/or irreparable damage or High Crime.

A lot of justice systems do not deliver immediate justice. They hold trials, hearings, and actual investigations instead of quickly finding a scapegoat to subject to unjust punishment. This would encourage the latter, which we cannot support.

Canadianers thinks this an extremely valid point. "Immediate" suggests two things: first, a court system must be able to issue a ruling as soon as the lawsuit is filed, and second, it kind of implies the plaintiff should win no matter what? Canadianers suggests Ubertas changes it to something like "to deliver justice within a reasonable period of time".

[Pakania]

Dear Ubertas,

We have another inquiry that wasn’t addressed or commented on earlier but we believe would help your Resolution with better terminology usage. In the article below, you’ve listed possible characteristics that are protected from persecution. However, wouldn't skin colour automatically fall under "physical characteristics"? And ethnic identity? Would ethnic identity be based on heritage or self-declared? If the former is true, wouldn’t that fall under “physical characteristics” as well or is “physical characteristics” only for physical disabilities and sex/gender?

Definitions

1. A "Breach of International Conduct" is behavior consisting of one or more of the following actions:
   
   1. Systematic persecution of an individual or group due to their possession of characteristics defined as protected, such as: skin color, physical characteristics, mental characteristics, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, cultural heritage, or ethnic identity.
   2. Actions defined as war crimes.
   3. Actions where nation(s) or people(s) egregiously infringes on the sovereignty and basic rights of other nation(s) or people(s).

As for actions defined as war crimes, our previous question from before still exists:

… [F]or war crimes, are the definitions that fall under that category decided by individual nations, or is it collectively decided by the World Assembly (and notably the recently passed General Assembly Resolution #6 covering said issue)? [We ask this because] Pakania feels that the 6th General World Assembly Resolution didn't cover a dangerously common act of human rights violations (for example, sexual violence was never addressed formally); ergo, it wouldn't cover missed violations under this Resolution either if the definition of war crimes was strictly adhering to the passed one.

Much regards from Pakania, y buena suerte.

[Rovhania]

The Delegation of Rovhania believes that Ecocide should also be a high crime that CoURT prosecutes. The rampant damage to ecologies due to the calamitous destruction of these habitats, especially for the purpose of cutting another nation's military's supply chain or destroying vital ecological zones for military advantage.

[Ubertas]

This is still being updated! New changes have been appended and will continue to be added.

[Ubertas]

The Delegation of Rovhania believes that Ecocide should also be a high crime that CoURT prosecutes. The rampant damage to ecologies due to the calamitous destruction of these habitats, especially for the purpose of cutting another nation's military's supply chain or destroying vital ecological zones for military advantage.

I hear your concerns and understand them. I feel, however, that this falls quite neatly under:

1 II) Actions where nation(s) or people(s) egregiously infringes on the sovereignty and basic rights of other nation(s) or people(s)

If another entity is egregiously destroying the environment in that way, then I'd say they're harming or infringing upon the livelihoods, trade, agriculture, etc. of another nation. If you have wording you'd like me to look at, feel free to add it here, and I'll possibly append it, though.

[Ubertas]

Dear Ubertas,

We have another inquiry that wasn’t addressed or commented on earlier but we believe would help your Resolution with better terminology usage. In the article below, you’ve listed possible characteristics that are protected from persecution. However, wouldn't skin colour automatically fall under "physical characteristics"? And ethnic identity? Would ethnic identity be based on heritage or self-declared? If the former is true, wouldn’t that fall under “physical characteristics” as well or is “physical characteristics” only for physical disabilities and sex/gender?

Definitions

1. A "Breach of International Conduct" is behavior consisting of one or more of the following actions:
   
   1. Systematic persecution of an individual or group due to their possession of characteristics defined as protected, such as: skin color, physical characteristics, mental characteristics, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, cultural heritage, or ethnic identity.
   2. Actions defined as war crimes.
   3. Actions where nation(s) or people(s) egregiously infringes on the sovereignty and basic rights of other nation(s) or people(s).

As for actions defined as war crimes, our previous question from before still exists:

… [F]or war crimes, are the definitions that fall under that category decided by individual nations, or is it collectively decided by the World Assembly (and notably the recently passed General Assembly Resolution #6 covering said issue)? [We ask this because] Pakania feels that the 6th General World Assembly Resolution didn't cover a dangerously common act of human rights violations (for example, sexual violence was never addressed formally); ergo, it wouldn't cover missed violations under this Resolution either if the definition of war crimes was strictly adhering to the passed one.

Much regards from Pakania, y buena suerte.

The Breach of International conduct uses the wording "such as," meaning that these are examples and not an exclusive list. I understand the definitions may seem vague, but the GA or the COURT's legal expertise determines how they apply. Ethnic identity, I imagine, is a mixture of longstanding cultural practices, community, and self-identification. I did add sex/gender, though, even though it should fall under physical characteristics.

As for the war crimes portion, I agree, but I do not wish to define things that are otherwise best left to separate GA resolutions.

[Ubertas]

A lot of justice systems do not deliver immediate justice. They hold trials, hearings, and actual investigations instead of quickly finding a scapegoat to subject to unjust punishment. This would encourage the latter, which we cannot support.

Canadianers thinks this an extremely valid point. "Immediate" suggests two things: first, a court system must be able to issue a ruling as soon as the lawsuit is filed, and second, it kind of implies the plaintiff should win no matter what? Canadianers suggests Ubertas changes it to something like "to deliver justice within a reasonable period of time".

Quite audacious to comment after essentially lifting a large portion of some of my earlier drafts and proposing it as your own merely three days before you wrote this...

[Lipizia]

The World Assembly,

Reflecting that throughout the course of history, numerous grave instances have transpired where rights have been breached, injustices have occurred, and serious crimes have been committed;

Believing that the establishment of an international body based on collective action and shared sentiments of justice can ameliorate or prevent the repetition of such actions;

Upholding that the rulings of such a forum will respect the rights, governments, liberties, and domestic policy choices of all members not explicitly ceded to this body; therefore;

This body establishes that:

1. Definitions
   
   1. A "Breach of International Conduct" is behavior consisting of one or more of the following actions:
      
      1. Systematic persecution of an individual or group due to their possession of characteristics defined as protected, such as: skin color, physical characteristics, mental characteristics, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, sex, gender, cultural heritage, or ethnic identity.
      2. Actions defined as war crimes. Which are this war crimes? Not definited.
      3. Actions where nation(s) or people(s) egregiously infringes on the sovereignty and basic rights of other nation(s) or people(s). Also here, you didn't definited the basic right. This happens often in the GA I see.
   2. An "Impossible Amelioration of Justice" is a condition where there is a credible lack of infrastructure, will, Will? You,make It, stop. Justice Is more importante of willing of a person.or due process to deliver reasonably swift and commensurate justice to plaintiffs subjected to perceived extraordinary and/or irreparable damage or Breach of International Conduct.
2. The Commission
   
   1. The Commission to Organize Universal Rights & Treatment (hereafter COURT) shall be established as a forum to listen and bring reconciliation to events meeting the Standard of Purview.
3. Standard of Purview
   
   1. The COURT shall only arbitrate on instances of a Breach of International Conduct or where there is an Impossible Amelioration of Justice. The determination of whether such an event meets these standards must be heard and based on:
      
      • The appropriate World Assembly resolution(s) when applicable or, in the absence thereof, the COURT itself.
      • Sufficient evidence that national courts or involved parties are obstructing, delaying, or hindering justice.
      • Sufficient evidence that truth and reconciliation cannot be carried out at a private or national level.
   2. Member states or victims of a Breach of International Conduct or Impossible Amelioration of Justice may bring cases before the COURT as plaintiffs, or the COURT itself may choose to take up cases by direct petition.
      
   3. Should General Assembly legislation change policies in a way that contradicts past recommendations, plaintiffs, victims, or those accused by the latter may ask the COURT for reassessment of recommendations and/or have the case re-heard.
4. Procedure
   
   1. Member states may participate in, send, or rescind members to the COURT with the appropriate and relevant expertise and mental fitness, as determined by their internal procedures.
      
   2. The COURT shall define its own procedures, conduct of participants, and case management systems.
      
   3. Upon taking up a case, involved member states shall determine if they consent to participating in the arbitration process.
5. Arbitration & Enactment
   
   1. The COURT shall issue public decisions, based on the facts of the case, which may entail reconciliation, sanctions, reforms, and collective actions for the international community, and coordinate with them to ensure their enactment. These must respect the sovereignty and reserved powers prescribed by the General Assembly, while still delivering appropriate justice.
      
   2. Member states consenting to arbitration agree to coordinate to adopt, implement, enforce, and abide by the COURT and its arbitrations through individual political, diplomatic, economic, legal, or law enforcement measures.
      
   3. Member states who refuse to accept arbitration or abide by decisions of the COURT must submit their reasoning to the public and the General Assembly. Other parties consenting to arbitration and member states are encouraged to enact and coordinate sanctions or other political measures in response.

Edit History Moved

Against, also because if I remember well there is another currently at work.

[Hesitant Dispatch 440]

Against, also because if I remember well there is another currently at work.

This one came first, which you'd know if you could read the above post.

[Ubertas]

Edit History Moved[/box]Against, also because if I remember well there is another currently at work.

If you’d look, this was proposed in August whereas the proposal you refer to was made in September.

That aside:
1) war crimes are already defined by GA resolution International War Crimes Convention. But I have added some context
2) no one defines “basic rights” in many of their proposals because it’s outside the scope of the resolution and up to a resolution on basic rights to define. This is also at work if you look at the forums.

[Kshemarashtram]

That aside:
1) war crimes are already defined by GA resolution International War Crimes Convention.
2) no one defines “basic rights” in many of their proposals because it’s outside the scope of the resolution and up to a resolution on basic rights to define. This is also at work if you look at the forums.

R1(b) house of cards?

And do you intend to submit this after a resolution on basic rights is passed? As it would be dubious for a proposal to allow the definition of one of its terms to depend on a non-existent resolution. You may say it's a common-sense definition, who knows, not everything can be defined in a single resolution after all, but jurists may not be unwilling to partake in some interpretative sophistry. Just pointing it out.

[Hesitant Dispatch 440]

That aside:
1) war crimes are already defined by GA resolution International War Crimes Convention.
2) no one defines “basic rights” in many of their proposals because it’s outside the scope of the resolution and up to a resolution on basic rights to define. This is also at work if you look at the forums.

R1(b) house of cards?

And do you intend to submit this after a resolution on basic rights is passed? As it would be dubious for a proposal to allow the definition of one of its terms to depend on a non-existent resolution. You may say it's a common-sense definition, who knows, not everything can be defined in a single resolution after all, but jurists may not be unwilling to partake in some interpretative sophistry. Just pointing it out.

The history of House of Cards as a rule is not as wide-ranging as it may seem on a first read.

Resolutions can, did, and still do rely often on the mandates of previous resolutions to be "complete". The entire compliance mechanism of the GA was made up of three or four resolutions working in tandem with eachother to paint a complete picture. The only thing House of Cards does is prevent one resolution from being textually dependent on another. You cannot, for example, say that your proposal will do x based on the definitions given by GA#YYY, but you can say that it'll do something based on previously passed GA resolutions. Think of it as an episode of a procedural like Dr. House. You can select any episode, watch it, and have a complete story, but if you haven't watched any other you'll find yourself completely lost and unable to identify who the characters are, what their motivations might be etc. The episodes are "complete" and can stand on their own, but you'd do well to watch them in sequence to better understand their context and overall story.

My recent article on subordination clauses is tangentially related to this. To quote a relevant bit:

"Subordination clauses are indeed often the way that authors find to rely on previous or future resolutions without violating this part of the ruleset. It is an inevitability that something as complex as international law will require more than 5k characters at a time to be effective. This use, while seemingly subversive at first, is necessary to the functionality of the GA as a cohesive corpus of laws and is something I support fully."

As for passing this before a resolution on basic rights is passed, that's par for the course. It's always been done. It'd be horribly inconvenient to withhold topics from consideration until all of their related and arguably pre-requisite parts have been appropriately legislated by the GA. If there is a hole in GA legislation, fill it! It's more important to fill the holes than it is to avoid creating them in the first place, it's just what works best with the collaborative, community-wide, "anyone can write" vibe of the Assembly.

[Ubertas]

Bumping before hopefully moving to next steps.

[Hesitant Dispatch 440]

No fancy formatting this time because I'm lazy and want to get something out already. Sorry.

First clause of the preamble is weird. I think it's trying to be a bit poetic but failing. Try this: "Reflecting that, throughout the course of history, instances of grave crimes, injustices, and violations of basic rights have occurred". Or something to that effect.

Third clause of the preamble has a "therefore" placed between semicolons, of all things. Looks ugly.

Onto the contents.

I recommend adding a non-retroactive generic subjection clause to the first definition presented in article (?) I. Future proposals should be able to, themselves, specify something to be a "Breach of International Conduct" and delineate it further. As written, the proposal makes this possible, but it doesn't ensure that future clauses using this wording will be received and acknowledged by it.

Article II can be conjoined with article III, making its only mandate the latter's first. As I said a few days ago in another thread this is mostly preference, but I find that grouping things up saves ever-precious characters and makes for more focused legislation.

III.1's list: make it numbered and write it as a continuous sentence (e.g. "[...] reasonable evidence: contained in relevant World Assembly resolution(s), when applicable or available, that the relevant [...]")

IV.1: what does it mean to send a member to COURT? Who are these members? What do the members sent by member-states to court do? Stand by and watch? The proposal doesn't mention them elsewhere, so unless there's a specific plan for what these members are supposed to do, you can safely scrap this.

IV.3: unfortunately extremely weak clause. Even the International Criminal Court makes determinations that sometimes go against the wishes of member-nations, some of which don't even necessarily find themselves to be signatories of the Rome Statute. In fact, the ICC's complementarity principle pretty much ensures its actions are undesired by whoever is subjected to them more often that not. It's unfortunate that a particular rhetorical strand forces this proposal to be so much weaker than even the faulty, ineffective institutions of the real world. Understandable, and I don't blame you for it, but unfortunate.

[Ubertas]

No fancy formatting this time because I'm lazy and want to get something out already. Sorry.

First clause of the preamble is weird. I think it's trying to be a bit poetic but failing. Try this: "Reflecting that, throughout the course of history, instances of grave crimes, injustices, and violations of basic rights have occurred". Or something to that effect.

Third clause of the preamble has a "therefore" placed between semicolons, of all things. Looks ugly.

Onto the contents.

I recommend adding a non-retroactive generic subjection clause to the first definition presented in article (?) I. Future proposals should be able to, themselves, specify something to be a "Breach of International Conduct" and delineate it further. As written, the proposal makes this possible, but it doesn't ensure that future clauses using this wording will be received and acknowledged by it.

Article II can be conjoined with article III, making its only mandate the latter's first. As I said a few days ago in another thread this is mostly preference, but I find that grouping things up saves ever-precious characters and makes for more focused legislation.

III.1's list: make it numbered and write it as a continuous sentence (e.g. "[...] reasonable evidence: contained in relevant World Assembly resolution(s), when applicable or available, that the relevant [...]")

IV.1: what does it mean to send a member to COURT? Who are these members? What do the members sent by member-states to court do? Stand by and watch? The proposal doesn't mention them elsewhere, so unless there's a specific plan for what these members are supposed to do, you can safely scrap this.

IV.3: unfortunately extremely weak clause. Even the International Criminal Court makes determinations that sometimes go against the wishes of member-nations, some of which don't even necessarily find themselves to be signatories of the Rome Statute. In fact, the ICC's complementarity principle pretty much ensures its actions are undesired by whoever is subjected to them more often that not. It's unfortunate that a particular rhetorical strand forces this proposal to be so much weaker than even the faulty, ineffective institutions of the real world. Understandable, and I don't blame you for it, but unfortunate.

Edited to concur with the changes. Much obliged!

[Tinhampton]

This was literally just submitted a few minutes ago. I do not plan to support or approve this proposal, owing to the impossibility of universal compliance. I must add that "relevent" in Article II.2.i is a typo!

A few more substantiative questions I have:

1. What distinguishes an Impossible Amelioration of Justice from a standard miscarriage of justice, or is the key in the reference to "perceived extraordinary damages and/or Breach of International Conduct?"
2. COURT's decisions "may entail reconciliation, sanctions, reforms, and collective actions for the international community" which "respect the sovereignty and reserved powers prescribed by the General Assembly, while still delivering appropriate justice." How can I be sure - even with GA#2 and GA#7 in force - that this is not just a permission slip for COURT to mandate extensive changes to how member states discharge their internal business?
3. "Member states who refuse to abide by decisions of the COURT or accept arbitration must submit their reasoning to the public." Does this include member states that do not adopt CIA and therefore are not bound by it? Remember that it is no longer the case that all resolutions apply to all members.

Apologies for my lateness, but I've been pretty disconnected from the GA for the last few months!

[Hesitant Dispatch 440]

This was literally just submitted a few minutes ago. I do not plan to support or approve this proposal, owing to the impossibility of universal compliance. I must add that "relevent" in Article II.2.i is a typo!

Opposed, no matter the content or authors. In our wonderful new world of Adoption, it is and will be impossible to convince every nation in the World Assembly to agree to use any site as a Headquarters. Therefore, a resolution establishing a single Headquarters (virtual or physical) will be less than viable in practice.

That does not make sense. That applies to literally any proposal. If some member nations want to go meet somewhere else, that's their prerogative.

Edit: and, yes, that is said with respect to your follow-up.

[Tinhampton]

This was literally just submitted a few minutes ago. I do not plan to support or approve this proposal, owing to the impossibility of universal compliance. I must add that "relevent" in Article II.2.i is a typo!

That does not make sense. That applies to literally any proposal. If some member nations want to go meet somewhere else, that's their prerogative.

Edit: and, yes, that is said with respect to your follow-up.

Establishing COURT as "a forum" for international dispute resolution - not even the definitive forum - is different from establishing WASBBRHQ as "the official headquarters of the World Assembly." I accept that member states can agree, via the World Assembly or non-WA multilateral agreements, to establish other international courts. Indeed, the ICC and the ICJ both operate in the real world, even if their exact purviews differ.

In principle, one or more international criminal courts established under the WA's auspices would be a good idea. Such courts will, almost by definition, be fairer and broader than any non-WA multilateral court. However, in this case, genuinely rogue actors could choose not to adopt CIA. (Remember that you are no longer required to comply with all resolutions in full, but only the ones which you adopt.) Then, when they commit a Breach of International Conduct and/or Impossible Amelioration of Justice, they can rig their domestic courts in their favour, and then make it more or less impossible for domestic plaintiffs/victims to go to COURT, because the plaintiff lives in the same member state - which is not a state party to CIA - as the one they have sued.

To reiterate my third question, are member states which are not party to the CIA bound by COURT anyway - even if everyone involved in the case is in a non-state party, or the dispute is between two non-states parties? (Remember that "Member states or victims of a Breach of International Conduct or Impossible Amelioration of Justice may bring cases before the COURT as plaintiffs," per Article II.3.) If they are not bound, then this makes sense in the context of Adoption, but we run into the aforementioned rogue-actor problem. If they are bound, then justice is swifter or more certain, but COURT is empowered to issue rulings against (Article IV.1), or otherwise hold accountable (Article IV.3), a member state which does not accept COURT's jurisdiction by virtue of not adopting CIA.

That is to say, either COURT has limited jurisdiction and thus respects the sovereignty of non-states parties (however bad they are), or COURT has unlimited jurisdiction and is thus mandated to impact on the sovereignty of non-states parties (however unwilling they are). The scope of COURT's jurisdiction is not a topic of limited or theoretical import, given that COURT has the power to mandate "reconciliation, sanctions, reforms, and collective actions for the international community" in its judgments.

[Ubertas]

Typo fixed, will edit in responses later

[Untecna]

Opposition on the basis that because member-states are not required to adopt and comply with every passed resolution, "universal compliance" cannot be achieved, is silly. It's the other side of the coin that "just don't adopt it" is on.

Obvious support from myself, looking forward to seeing some more Starborn authorship

[East Chimore]

Aside from section VI.3 that makes the arbitration toothless, my main gripe with this resolution is the Ex Post Facto risk that II.4 introduces

II.4 - Should General Assembly legislation change policies in a way that contradicts past recommendations, plaintiffs, victims, or those accused by the latter may ask the COURT for reassessment of decisions and/or have the case re-heard.

Should the commission find an accused did not break International Conduct or an existing international law, but then later that action becomes outlawed by a new resolution, then an accused can have the case re-opened against them for at-the-time legal conduct. How should that be permissible?