NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Sovereign Justice Accord

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[PASSED] Sovereign Justice Accord

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:30 am

Image Image
Sovereign Justice Accord
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform



Whereas it is destabilising to the international system to permit suits against a member nation in the courts of another member nation, as this would
  1. allow for member nations to engage in abusive suits against other and
  2. imply that one nation is in a position of supremacy to the nation being sued:
And whereas sovereigns have incentives to avoid being held to justice in the status quo:

And whereas GAR 466 “World Assembly Justice Accord” creates a cohesive and robust means to try cases submitted to it and provides clear and effective measures to review decisions made therein:

Be it enacted by this august World Assembly as follows:
  1. In this resolution,
    1. use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa,
    2. legal persons means legal persons under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and/or its members,
    3. WAJC refers to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
    4. member means member nation,
    5. resolution means General Assembly resolution,
    6. IAO refers to the Independent Adjudicative Office, and
    7. WAJC courts refers to the courts established by the WAJC under section 2 of this resolution.
  2. WAJC shall appoint judges to trial and appellate courts, which will hear cases in panels of one and three judges respectively.
  3. No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in WAJC’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.
  4. WAJC courts shall apply WA law and all other laws applicable within the relevant jurisdiction(s). Members must provide the WAJC with official translations of their laws in the WAJC’s working language.
  5. WAJC must make regulations to govern the processes by which people can initiate judicial proceedings in a way that ensures that grievances can be processed and adjudicated fairly for all parties with respect to civil and criminal actions.
    1. If it can be shown to the IAO that those regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section, the IAO may alter or abolish them.
    2. Parties in cases before WAJC courts may retain counsel for their own representation.
  6. Affected legal persons-
    1. may appeal against judgements of WAJC’s trial courts to its appellate courts and
    2. must cooperate fully with any orders and judgements issued by WAJC’s courts within a reasonable time frame, as set by the courts.
  7. WAJC’s courts may require a member to pay compensatory and non-compensatory damages as part of a judgement against that nation.
  8. No judge serving in a WAJC court may hear cases involving a member that they are or have been a citizen of, or where they have or have had permanent residence. WAJC may, upon acceptance of a case, dispatch court officials to a locale more convenient for proceedings. Members must permit the entrance and exit of such court officials.
  9. All members must submit evidence requested by a WAJC court which it believes is sufficiently important. The courts of WAJC should, in deciding whether to request evidence from a member, weigh the interests of the member against the necessity of requesting the evidence.
    1. Members are to be permitted to file emergency motions against the production of classified documents with an appellate court of WAJC, who will have final judgement on the matter. The appellate courts may dismiss any motions that are prima facie frivolous or meant to disrupt proceedings.
    2. If a member is required to produce classified documents, WAJC’s courts will take appropriate measures to prevent the disclosure of said documents to the general public.
Co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.

OOC: This was authored by Imperium Anglorum and me as an alternative to the proposal I brought on sovereign immunity, still preventing abusive suits, but securing people's ability to sue foreign governments.
Last edited by Ransium on Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:03 am, edited 15 times in total.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:30 am

Image Image
Sovereign Justice Accord
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform



Whereas it is destabilising to the international system to permit suits against a member nation in the courts of another member nation, as this would
  1. allow for member nations to engage in abusive suits against other and
  2. imply that one nation is in a position of supremacy to the nation being sued:
And whereas sovereigns have incentives to avoid being held to justice in the status quo:

And whereas GAR 466 “World Assembly Justice Accord” creates a cohesive and robust means to try cases submitted to it and provides clear and effective measures to review decisions made therein:

Be it enacted by this august World Assembly as follows:
  1. In this resolution,
    1. use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa,
    2. affected legal persons means legal persons under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and its members,
    3. JusComm refers to the World Assembly Justice Committee,
    4. member means member nation,
    5. resolution means General Assembly resolution, and
    6. IAO refers to the Independent Adjudicative Office.
  2. JusComm shall appoint judges to trial and appellate courts, which will hear cases in panels of one and three judges respectively.
  3. No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member nation or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member nation or subdivision, except in JusComm’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.
  4. JusComm must make regulations to govern the processes by which people can initiate judicial proceedings in a way that ensures that grievances can be processed and adjudicated fairly for all parties with respect to civil and criminal actions.
    1. If it can be shown to the IAO that those regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section, the IAO may alter or abolish them.
    2. Parties in cases before JusComm courts may retain counsel for their own representation.
  5. Affected legal persons—
    1. may appeal against judgements of JusComm’s trial courts to its appellate courts and
    2. must cooperate fully with any orders and judgements issued by JusComm’s courts within a reasonable time frame, as set by the courts.
  6. JusComm’s courts may require a member nation to pay compensatory and non-compensatory damages as part of a judgement against that nation.
  7. No judge serving in a JusComm court may hear cases involving a member nation that they are or have been a citizen of, or where they have or have had permanent residence. JusComm may, upon acceptance of a case, dispatch court officials to a locale more convenient for proceedings. Members must permit the entrance and exit of such court officials.
  8. All members must submit evidence requested by a JusComm court which it believes is sufficiently important. The courts of JusComm should, in deciding whether to request evidence from a member, weigh the interests of the member against the necessity of requesting the evidence.
    1. Members are to be permitted to file emergency motions against the release of classified documents with an appellate court of JusComm, who will have final judgement on the matter. The appellate courts may dismiss any motions that are prima facie frivolous or meant to disrupt proceedings.
    2. If a member is required to release classified documents, JusComm’s courts will take appropriate measures to prevent the disclosure of said documents to the general public.
Co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.

Image Image
Sovereign Justice Accord
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform



Whereas it is destabilising to the international system to permit suits against a member nation in the courts of another member nation, as this would
  1. allow for member nations to engage in abusive suits against other and
  2. imply that one nation is in a position of supremacy to the nation being sued:
And whereas sovereigns have incentives to avoid being held to justice in the status quo:

And whereas GAR 466 “World Assembly Justice Accord” creates a cohesive and robust means to try cases submitted to it and provides clear and effective measures to review decisions made therein:

Be it enacted by this august World Assembly as follows:
  1. In this resolution,
    1. use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa,
    2. affected legal persons means legal persons under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and/or its members,
    3. JudComm refers to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
    4. member means member nation,
    5. resolution means General Assembly resolution, and
    6. IAO refers to the Independent Adjudicative Office.
  2. JudComm shall appoint judges to trial and appellate courts, which will hear cases in panels of one and three judges respectively.
  3. No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in JudComm’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.
  4. JudComm must make regulations to govern the processes by which people can initiate judicial proceedings in a way that ensures that grievances can be processed and adjudicated fairly for all parties with respect to civil and criminal actions.
    1. If it can be shown to the IAO that those regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section, the IAO may alter or abolish them.
    2. Parties in cases before JudComm courts may retain counsel for their own representation.
  5. Affected legal persons-
    1. may appeal against judgements of JudComm’s trial courts to its appellate courts and
    2. must cooperate fully with any orders and judgements issued by JudComm’s courts within a reasonable time frame, as set by the courts.
  6. JudComm’s courts may require a member to pay compensatory and non-compensatory damages as part of a judgement against that nation.
  7. No judge serving in a JudComm court may hear cases involving a member that they are or have been a citizen of, or where they have or have had permanent residence. JudComm may, upon acceptance of a case, dispatch court officials to a locale more convenient for proceedings. Members must permit the entrance and exit of such court officials.
  8. All members must submit evidence requested by a JudComm court which it believes is sufficiently important. The courts of JudComm should, in deciding whether to request evidence from a member, weigh the interests of the member against the necessity of requesting the evidence.
    1. Members are to be permitted to file emergency motions against the production of classified documents with an appellate court of JudComm, who will have final judgement on the matter. The appellate courts may dismiss any motions that are prima facie frivolous or meant to disrupt proceedings.
    2. If a member is required to produce classified documents, JudComm’s courts will take appropriate measures to prevent the disclosure of said documents to the general public.
Co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.

Image Image
Sovereign Justice Accord
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform



Whereas it is destabilising to the international system to permit suits against a member nation in the courts of another member nation, as this would
  1. allow for member nations to engage in abusive suits against other and
  2. imply that one nation is in a position of supremacy to the nation being sued:
And whereas sovereigns have incentives to avoid being held to justice in the status quo:

And whereas GAR 466 “World Assembly Justice Accord” creates a cohesive and robust means to try cases submitted to it and provides clear and effective measures to review decisions made therein:

Be it enacted by this august World Assembly as follows:
  1. In this resolution,
    1. use of the singular includes the plural and vice versa,
    2. legal persons means legal persons under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and/or its members,
    3. WAJC refers to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee,
    4. member means member nation,
    5. resolution means General Assembly resolution, and
    6. IAO refers to the Independent Adjudicative Office.
  2. WAJC shall appoint judges to trial and appellate courts, which will hear cases in panels of one and three judges respectively.
  3. No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in WAJC’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.
  4. WAJC courts shall apply WA law and all other laws applicable within the jurisdiction where wrongdoing is alleged. Members must provide the WAJC with official translations of their laws in the WAJC’s working language.
  5. WAJC must make regulations to govern the processes by which people can initiate judicial proceedings in a way that ensures that grievances can be processed and adjudicated fairly for all parties with respect to civil and criminal actions.
    1. If it can be shown to the IAO that those regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section, the IAO may alter or abolish them.
    2. Parties in cases before WAJC courts may retain counsel for their own representation.
  6. Affected legal persons-
    1. may appeal against judgements of WAJC’s trial courts to its appellate courts and
    2. must cooperate fully with any orders and judgements issued by WAJC’s courts within a reasonable time frame, as set by the courts.
  7. WAJC’s courts may require a member to pay compensatory and non-compensatory damages as part of a judgement against that nation.
  8. No judge serving in a WAJC court may hear cases involving a member that they are or have been a citizen of, or where they have or have had permanent residence. WAJC may, upon acceptance of a case, dispatch court officials to a locale more convenient for proceedings. Members must permit the entrance and exit of such court officials.
  9. All members must submit evidence requested by a WAJC court which it believes is sufficiently important. The courts of WAJC should, in deciding whether to request evidence from a member, weigh the interests of the member against the necessity of requesting the evidence.
    1. Members are to be permitted to file emergency motions against the production of classified documents with an appellate court of WAJC, who will have final judgement on the matter. The appellate courts may dismiss any motions that are prima facie frivolous or meant to disrupt proceedings.
    2. If a member is required to produce classified documents, WAJC’s courts will take appropriate measures to prevent the disclosure of said documents to the general public.
Co-authored by Imperium Anglorum.
Last edited by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle on Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Radicalania
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 116
Founded: Dec 19, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Radicalania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:12 am

Are resolutions allowed to reference specific resolutions in their text? What happens if we repeal that resolution?
Posts on this account represent Martyn Kiryu of The Communist Bloc.
Currently First Minister of TCB.

"Ask for work. If they don't give you work, ask for bread. If they don't give you work or bread, then take bread"-Emma Golding, Anarchism and Other Essays
ALL Cats Are Beautiful

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2584
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:14 am

Radicalania wrote:Are resolutions allowed to reference specific resolutions in their text? What happens if we repeal that resolution?

You’re allowed to mention them.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21015
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:34 pm

Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 183
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Flying Eagles » Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:24 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

According to its preamble, this resolution makes it so that if our nation sues your nation, we must use international courts, and not our own courts. That was apparently a choice under previous resolutions. However, this resolution should probably reuse the “World Assembly Judiciary Committee” from GAR#466, as it already provides for what Clause 2 attempts to establish. We advise the following changes to avoid duplication:

Change 1c to read “JusComm refers to the World Assembly Judiciary Committee”.

Remove Clause 2, as we don’t need two committees to appoint judges, one is enough.


OOC: I think this resolution deals with civil law, while 466 deals with criminal law. As you can tell by my comments above, I was quite confused for a bit. To clarify the difference, I’d retitle this resolution to “Civil Justice Accord” and retitle the committee to “World Assembly Civil Tribunal” or something similar.
Last edited by Flying Eagles on Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I say dumb things sometimes. Sorry.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21015
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:47 pm

Flying Eagles wrote:OOC: I think this resolution deals with civil law, while 466 deals with criminal law. As you can tell by my comments above, I was quite confused for a bit. To clarify the difference, I’d retitle this resolution to “Civil Justice Accord” and retitle the committee to “World Assembly Civil Tribunal” or something similar.

That might be the case, but WAJA also covers civil law.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:29 am

Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

OOC: First of all, the proposal should use the Judiciary Committee not the Justice Committee, that was an error. Now, there are two main differences between this and the WAJA. On the one hand, this proposal grants member states state immunity in the courts of other states, but only on the condition that a suit in a WA court is possible. At the same time, this proposal extends itself to violations of any law by a member state, not just WA law (which I'll make more explicit in the proposal).

Now there are duplications, but that is intentional, because that way, even if WAJA is repealed, we ensure that states can still be held accountable while they have state immunity in the courts of member states.
Last edited by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle on Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15384
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:45 am

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:On the one hand, this proposal grants member states state immunity in the courts of other states, but only on the condition that a suit in a WA court is possible.
*snip*
we ensure that states can still be held accountable while they have state immunity in the courts of member states.

OOC: ...so what exactly does this do that the existing resolution(s) doesn't do? Also, obviously nations don't have immunity in any courts, if the condition applies.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10158
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:52 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: ...so what exactly does this do that the existing resolution(s) doesn't do? Also, obviously nations don't have immunity in any courts, if the condition applies.

Venue matters.

Author: 1 SC and 40 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15384
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:00 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: ...so what exactly does this do that the existing resolution(s) doesn't do? Also, obviously nations don't have immunity in any courts, if the condition applies.

Venue matters.

OOC: Yes, but the way I understood it, nations can be tried in national courts, if they COULD be tried in a WA court. Not that they'll be tried in the WA court. So, if they can be tried in national courts, they don't have an immunity of being tried in national courts. Did I miss something?
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10158
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jul 21, 2020 1:39 am

Araraukar wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Venue matters.

OOC: Yes, but the way I understood it, nations can be tried in national courts, if they COULD be tried in a WA court. Not that they'll be tried in the WA court. So, if they can be tried in national courts, they don't have an immunity of being tried in national courts. Did I miss something?

Section 3.

No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member nation or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member nation or subdivision, except in JusComm’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.

Author: 1 SC and 40 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6530
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:43 am

“You use ‘member nation’ in clause 3, 6 and 7, despite defining ‘member’ as the complete phrase in clause 1d. Overall, this proposal has my support.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10158
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:45 am

OP, consider changing:
If a member is required produce to release classified documents

(this suggestion doesn't seem to make too much sense)
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 40 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Thu Aug 20, 2020 11:59 am

OOC: I am back (finally). I addressed some of the issues above and published a new draft.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:57 pm

-Bumping this thread-
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:43 am

OOC: Bump. May "last call" if it moves to the second page without comments again.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6530
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:56 pm

“I have nothing to add to this; full support from my end.”

(OOC: I seem to remember there being a Unicode issue with the long-dash character used in clause 5 ‘—’ in a previous proposal; I suggest using ‘-’ instead.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:45 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I have nothing to add to this; full support from my end.”

(OOC: I seem to remember there being a Unicode issue with the long-dash character used in clause 5 ‘—’ in a previous proposal; I suggest using ‘-’ instead.)

OOC: Fixed, thank you.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Sancta Romana Ecclesia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:39 am

We could get behind this, but it doesn't specify what lands you in this court and what law would be used. It would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried according to the laws of another nation, or even according to its own laws applied by some foreigners. Doing so would violate its sovereignty. The only acceptable laws to apply against the nation are those of WA (for its members) and international laws.
Affected legal persons-
  1. may appeal against judgements of JudComm’s trial courts to its appellate courts and
  2. must cooperate fully with any orders and judgements issued by JudComm’s courts within a reasonable time frame, as set by the courts.

Because "affected legal person" is a "legal person under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and its members", a member-nation itself doesn't classify as one. It is not under the jurisdiction of any member. It has jurisdiction of a member but isn't under it. It cannot even be said that it's under its own jurisdiction, as it is not limited by its own laws that can be changed by the nation. If a nation was bound by its own laws, it could never repeal any of them, which action is contradicting a previous law by making it no longer binding upon persons under its jurisdiction.
In this way sued nations are not granted a right to the appeal, which is given to the individuals suing them. This should be resolved, both parties in the case must have the same trial rights.
Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

Likewise, I don't believe a nation can be tried under GAR#466, as it is not an entity within its own jurisdiction, it is an entity that has this jurisdiction.
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Exactly what does this World Assembly Justice Committee achieve that the World Assembly Judiciary Committee does not already? This looks like duplication.

OOC: First of all, the proposal should use the Judiciary Committee not the Justice Committee, that was an error. Now, there are two main differences between this and the WAJA. On the one hand, this proposal grants member states state immunity in the courts of other states, but only on the condition that a suit in a WA court is possible. At the same time, this proposal extends itself to violations of any law by a member state, not just WA law (which I'll make more explicit in the proposal)

OOC: What is "any law" to you?
Paulus Asteorra

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Sat Aug 29, 2020 9:37 am

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:We could get behind this, but it doesn't specify what lands you in this court and what law would be used. It would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried according to the laws of another nation, or even according to its own laws applied by some foreigners. Doing so would violate its sovereignty. The only acceptable laws to apply against the nation are those of WA (for its members) and international laws.

IC: Ambassador, let me clarify the points you have made. First of all, the proposal is clear on what lands you in this court, namely when a foreign affected legal person decides to file a civil lawsuit against a member, Secondly, I strongly disagree with you that it "would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried [...] according to its own laws applied by some foreigners". This is hardly uncommon; in fact, a court, including the courts established in this resolution, can through a process known as "choice of law" decide which laws should be applied based on the jurisdiction in which the alleged wrongdoing took place. It is important that nations abide by the laws of the jurisdictions in which they and their officials operate, be it their own or a foreign one. If a member does not want to be subject to the laws of a foreign nation, it should not operate within that nation's jurisdiction.
Because "affected legal person" is a "legal person under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and its members", a member-nation itself doesn't classify as one. It is not under the jurisdiction of any member. It has jurisdiction of a member but isn't under it. It cannot even be said that it's under its own jurisdiction, as it is not limited by its own laws that can be changed by the nation. If a nation was bound by its own laws, it could never repeal any of them, which action is contradicting a previous law by making it no longer binding upon persons under its jurisdiction.
In this way sued nations are not granted a right to the appeal, which is given to the individuals suing them. This should be resolved, both parties in the case must have the same trial rights.

IC: Ambassador, regardless of the truthfulness of your remarks, a member is "under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly", thus making the concerns irrelevant.
OOC: What is "any law" to you?

OOC: All laws in effect within the jurisdiction where the alleged wrongdoing took place.
Last edited by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle on Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Sancta Romana Ecclesia
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 04, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:07 pm

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:IC: Ambassador, let me clarify the points you have made. First of all, the proposal is clear on what lands you in this court, namely when a foreign affected legal person decides to file a civil lawsuit against a member,

It is clear who will go to court, Ambassador. On what grounds, it's not clear at all. As a matter of fact a "foreign affected legal person" could sue a nation without having any personal grievance against it.
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:Secondly, I strongly disagree with you that it "would be unacceptable for any nation to be tried [...] according to its own laws applied by some foreigners". This is hardly uncommon; in fact, a court, including the courts established in this resolution, can through a process known as "choice of law" decide which laws should be applied based on the jurisdiction in which the alleged wrongdoing took place. It is important that nations abide by the laws of the jurisdictions in which they and their officials operate, be it their own or a foreign one. If a member does not want to be subject to the laws of a foreign nation, it should not operate within that nation's jurisdiction.

First of all, the "choice of law" should be used when addressing the grievances of an individual against a foreign individual, not an individual against the nation. Second, the process is not currently in your draft. Third, if nations can be subject to laws of other nations, why can't they be subjected to their courts in much of the same way? Your argument logically leads to that conclusion, yet the function of this resolution would be to prevent that from happening.
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:
Because "affected legal person" is a "legal person under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly and its members", a member-nation itself doesn't classify as one. It is not under the jurisdiction of any member. It has jurisdiction of a member but isn't under it. It cannot even be said that it's under its own jurisdiction, as it is not limited by its own laws that can be changed by the nation. If a nation was bound by its own laws, it could never repeal any of them, which action is contradicting a previous law by making it no longer binding upon persons under its jurisdiction.
In this way sued nations are not granted a right to the appeal, which is given to the individuals suing them. This should be resolved, both parties in the case must have the same trial rights.

IC: Ambassador, regardless of the truthfulness of your remarks, a member is "under the jurisdiction of the World Assembly", thus making the concerns irrelevant.

The "affected legal person" is defined as under the jurisdiction of WA AND that of its members. This means a legal person must be under both of these jurisdictions.
Paulus Asteorra

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:25 pm

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:First of all, the "choice of law" should be used when addressing the grievances of an individual against a foreign individual, not an individual against the nation. Second, the process is not currently in your draft. Third, if nations can be subject to laws of other nations, why can't they be subjected to their courts in much of the same way? Your argument logically leads to that conclusion, yet the function of this resolution would be to prevent that from happening.

IC: Ambassador, I am not sure where you base your first point on. With regards to your second point, JudComm is tasked with establishing the exact processes, but a "choice of law" process is not just a natural part of courts like these, they would also be required in order to comply with 374. For the sake of clarifying this to you and other ambassadors, we shall consider clarifying this in a further draft. With regards to your third point, I'd point to the first clause of the preamble to explain why the venue for such civil suits is restricted to JudComm's courts.
The "affected legal person" is defined as under the jurisdiction of WA AND that of its members. This means a legal person must be under both of these jurisdictions.

OOC: Although I don't agree with that interpretation, I will change the draft to "and/or".
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21015
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:35 pm

"The interaction of this proposal with World Assembly Justice Accord has not been resolved. Clause 3 reads:
No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in JudComm’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.

"This contradicts World Assembly Justice Accord's clause 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,

"The World Assembly Judiciary Committee handles both criminal and civil cases. It is possible that in some member states, the central government does not have jurisdiction over its subdivisions or subordinate governments, although I can't imagine any such state could sustain itself under even the slightest conflict between lesser authorities and the central state. However, it is unquestionably the case that there are member states in which the central government has such jurisdiction. In those cases, your clause 3 produces a contrary mandate. You may wish to address this before submission."

Ogenbond goes back to his papers, then adds as an afterthought, "And/or is a nonsense phrase. 'Or' functions identically, and with much greater style."
Last edited by Wallenburg on Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 470
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:50 am

Wallenburg wrote:"The interaction of this proposal with World Assembly Justice Accord has not been resolved. Clause 3 reads:
No foreign affected legal person may initiate civil judicial proceedings against a member or its subdivisions, without the consent of that member or subdivision, except in JudComm’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution.

"This contradicts World Assembly Justice Accord's clause 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,

"The World Assembly Judiciary Committee handles both criminal and civil cases. It is possible that in some member states, the central government does not have jurisdiction over its subdivisions or subordinate governments, although I can't imagine any such state could sustain itself under even the slightest conflict between lesser authorities and the central state. However, it is unquestionably the case that there are member states in which the central government has such jurisdiction. In those cases, your clause 3 produces a contrary mandate. You may wish to address this before submission."

Ogenbond goes back to his papers, then adds as an afterthought, "And/or is a nonsense phrase. 'Or' functions identically, and with much greater style."

Ambassador, I see no such contradiction in the cited clauses. Let me present two possible interpretations of WAJA's 4th clause and explain why neither contradicts clause 3 of this proposal.

One could interpret clause 4 of WAJA as declaring that nations may sue - when particular criteria are met - in the courts set up by the World Assembly Judiciary Committee (hereafter "JudComm") in the WAJA. In that case, clause 3 of the SJA simply reaffirms this mandate, and in addition prohibits foreign affected legal persons from suing outside these JudComm courts.

On the other hand, if we accept clause 4 as a more general mandate that persons be allowed to sure when the given criteria are met, this proposal would still not contradict it, for it only limits the venues by which suit can be brought, but in no way prevents people from using this venue to sue.

--Saint Gabriel the Archangel, patron of the ambassadors and diplomats
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii. Cardinalis Secretarius Status.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Junitaki-cho

Advertisement

Remove ads