Character count: 3,164
Word count: 510
Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: To the best extent of my knowledge, nobody has ever attempted a repeal of the Sovereign Justice Accord. I have recently come to find it sufficiently unsatisfactory that an effort would, at least, be warranted. This is that attempt.Word count: 510
Repeal "Sovereign Justice Accord"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.Category: RepealTarget: GA#513Proposed by: Tinhampton
General Assembly Resolution #513 “Sovereign Justice Accord” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Legal Reform) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Observing that Article 3 of GA#513 forbids individuals from suing "foreign" member states (and their political subdivisions) "without the[ir] consent... except in WAJC’s trial courts and under procedures that may be established by resolution," which does nothing whatsoever to prevent the WA from establishing new such procedures (just as it would be able to in the target's absence) and thus does very little to protect members from foreign suits,
Recognising that Article 5 tasks the World Assembly Judiciary Committee (WAJC) with creating "regulations to govern the processes by which people can initiate judicial proceedings" whether those proceedings are due to take place in WAJC courts or within member state infrastructures, a process that (aside from having very little to do with the rest of the resolution, which focuses on state immunity) runs the risk of creating uniform lawsuit procedures across the World Assembly despite there being a diversity of legal systems - including means of, and valid reasons for, filing suit - in member states,
Concerned that Article 4 says "WAJC courts shall apply WA law and all other laws applicable within the relevant jurisdiction(s)" without any further guidance, whether that be on which of the member state jurisdictions' laws are overriding if they conflict on a focal issue (especially if those laws are on matters not surveyed by resolution) or if particular principles of justice should guide the final judgment,
Highlighting, for example, that if an intensive corn farmer whose tractor is destroyed seeks damages in accordance with GA#513 from the member government they believe was responsible for its destruction, and the destruction of agricultural equipment is legal in the defendant's state but not the plaintiff's state, it is not clear whether the WAJC should adopt the more restrictive or the more permissive reading, either from a legal (whether to adopt the law of the member state the act occurred in or the member state responsible for the act) or a moral (such as whether to go after those who destroy private property or instead punish those who commit acts of ecocide) view,
Uneasy at the realisation that, while Article 7 authorises the WAJC to order members "to pay compensatory and non-compensatory damages as part of a judgement against" them, there is no explicit corresponding requirement that (for instance) defeated plaintiffs pay legal fees to the member states they sued, which could encourage a torrent of low-quality suits against foreign states in WAJC courts made in the full knowledge that they will never have to pay anything even in the worst-case scenario (especially since the regulations the WAJC makes pursuant to Article 5 need only provide "that grievances can be processed and adjudicated fairly for all parties"), and
Believing that, in light of the above concerns, a sweeping prohibition on nonconsensual suits against foreign member states would be the most efficient and least problematic course for this body to take - a course it nonetheless cannot take until GA#513 is struck out...
The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#513 "Sovereign Justice Accord."
