NationStates Jolt Archive

The Common Sense resolution currently up for vote is winning by a large majority. The language within the resolution is vague and contains several loopholes, some of which are mentioned in another thread in this very forum.

Therefore, I submit this amended resolution for the sole purpose of clarifying the Common Sense resolution currently at vote. This amendment would come to vote subsequent to the passing of the aforementioned Common Sense resolution. Provided the Common Sense resolution currently up for vote does not pass, this proposed amendment would be brought to vote as it's own resolution.

The changes made from the proposed amendment are minimal, and they include cleaning up possibly deroggatory language and semantic changes designed to solidify the rules.

The revised amendment is as follows:
----------
Description: Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist.

Lawsuits where there is any evidence of “personal negligence” on the part of the injured party shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Personal Negligence shall be defined as such:
1: Injuring oneself with a product that is known by a reasonable person to be able of causing harm if used or handled incorrectly. For the purposes of this statute, incorrect use is defined as any use not consistent with the intent of the designer or manufacturer or any use that would be deemed irrational by a reasonable person.
2: Willfully consuming a legal product whose contents are known to cause injuries or damage to the person’s own health or well being.
3: Any injury to the actor’s person, where the injury is acquired while in the commission of a crime.
----------

Perhaps I should have added that anyone willing to discuss this amendment is more than welcome to do so.

Amendments are funny and sad. It's like "Go ahead and vote for it. Once it passes, we'll just amend it," but then the amendment does not make it.

Anyway, this amendment still doesn't cut it.

Eating foods high in saturated fat (such as a hamburger) is known to cause damage to your health.

Therefore, the proposal, even as amended, would prevent me from suing you if you put cyanide in my hamburger, since there was still "personal negligence" on my part.

The basic problem is this: Life is risky. Taking a risk shouldn't automatically make you fair game for anybody who want to take advantage of you.

I'd go with this amendment if it were further changed to read:

Lawsuits where *all harm* is due to “personal negligence” on the part of the injured party shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

I believe the major problem, the fact that the UN is dictating what laws a nation can and cannot pass, is still unadressed.

The UN cannot interfere in the internal laws of member nations.

Excellent points, Giedi and Gurthark.

First, setting the bar at "any evidence of personal negligence" is misguided. If the would-be defendant is 99% negligent and the would-be plaintiff is 1% negligent, under this resolution, even amended, the defendant gets off scot-free.

Secondly, the UN absolutely does not need to be in the business of policing each member's court system. If a nation's courts can not sort out meritless cases on their own, that nation deserves what it gets.

Third, being sued in no way violates one's civil liberties. In fact, removing the ability to seek redress and denying an alleged victim his or her day in court is a far greater civil liberty violation than allowing a meritless suit to at least be heard.

This is simply a bad resolution at its core, and there is no amount of amending that can make it good.

This does not have to be a mandate issued to every nations. Instead, it could easily be interpreted and issued as a code for Inter-UN transactions. Remember, this is a global economy and there is a good bit of trade between the nations. What happens if a basket maker in my country makes a faulty basket that injures one of your citizens. In the resulting lawsuit, who's code governs? There needs to be an international Tort code, and it is much easier to determine what you can not sue for than what you can. Laying out the most basic of guidelines gives a footing for a more complete bill or resolution.

This has the ability to be used as a separate guideline for transactions between member states, much like the current UN Commercial Code is in "real life". While it's scope is limited, it can be used as a starting point for other transactions.

To begin, I'd like to stress the point that a part of becoming a member of the UN is complying with Resolutions that are accepted, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. I, too, have an issue with the UN, or anyone, trying to force their morals and beliefs upon me, or the citizens of my nation. However, I have chosen to accept the bad with the potential for good. The only way to avoid intrusive legislation is to have a strong enough voice against it. That's all I am going to say on that subject for now.

Now, regardless of the UN's jurisdiction, Common Sense II raises, I believe, some valid questions.

1. To what extent do we allow our courts to be overrun by frivolous and time-consuming lawsuits?

2. Who has the right to establish the guidelines for governing the relevancy of lawsuits?

Who has the right to establish the guidelines? This most definitely should be left up to the nation. Whether governed by dictator or tribunal or community vote. No one resolution has the power to effectively guide the lawmaking of the next century or two. The problem with most resolutions is that they try to be like the United States of America's constitution, a semi-flexible set of rules that only seems to govern the government. Unfortunately most resolutions try to govern people.

Based upon the guidelines that each country/nation/republic/whatever has established, I think the first question will often be answered in itself. As for me, most "frivolous" lawsuits have the potential for valid arguments. The most obvious example being: Should a business have the right to sell a product that has a high fatality rate? I do not, however, believe that frivolous lawsuits should choke up my court system. So, I have placed the responsibility primarily on my lawyers. For every frivolous lawsuit a lawyer brings before the courts, they also need to bring forth at least two cases they are working pro bono on and two other criminal cases.

Perhaps another issue each country should face is this question of frivolous lawsuits.

Again, as far as UN resolutions go, this is definitely not any of the UN's business.

1 In my home town a person was drunk fell over and sued the government then won
2 A criminal was robbing a house the owner woke up shot him with a shotgun the pellets damaged his back he sued for loss of earnings because he could not do his job (robbery)

what is this :? :roll:

With a quick glance through past UN resolutions, it is glaringly apparent that the UN has mandated certain laws for all it's countries on more than one occasion (eg. sexual freedom resolution), and by extension, limited the actions of the UN nations respective courts. It is not too great an extension to allow the UN to regulate these same courts processes regarding torts.

This resolution is not denying any court from hearing, nor denying any member state citizen from filing, a proper tort case. What this resolution is designed to prevent are the unnecessary, frivilous, and downright irresponsible lawsuits that have become so common they now present a nuisance to the collective courts of the UN member states. I believe that personal responsiblity is a universally positive trait for both industries and the general populace. Tort cases arose as a method of "encouragement by warning" to insure parties keep their products and property safe and to minimize personal injuries. This system has worked well, and businesses keep their products safe.

There are abuses in this system, which the resolution attempts to correct and this amendment does correct. By allowing frivilous tort suits, the full burden of personal responsibility is placed upon the industries and other alleged tortfeasors. Individuals have an inate responsibility, established in nature, to protect themselves from undue harm and act in their own best interest. By allowing irresponsible individuals throughout the UN member states to willingly act to their detriment and then sue regarding an injury they themselves caused is unconscionable and ethically unsound. Industries should not be held liable for injuries caused by a person's lack of personal responsibility.

Additionally, the issue has been raised that in many cases there is negligence on both parties. It is not fair or ethical to make an alleged tortfeasor pay damages when it is not solely responsible for the alleged harm. Likewise, it is not fair or ethical to allow a knowingly irresponsible person to benefit from their own negligence. Thus, the amendment was written the way it was.

The precedent is there within the UN resolutions. This same body has previously ruled several times to mandate what is allowed within it's member nation's governments, including the courts. The need is there, as frivilous lawsuits have become more and more common. It seems apparent that Common Sense II will pass. To prevent any injustice caused by the vague, inprecise language of that resolution this amendment should be brought up to vote immediately upon it's passing.

When the Hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.
That will be ere the set of the sun.

I believe the major problem, the fact that the UN is dictating what laws a nation can and cannot pass, is still unadressed.

The UN cannot interfere in the internal laws of member nations.

This is something my delegate and I have hashed over and I have come to agree with him when it was said that the nation's government should be dictating the laws, not the UN. At first I instantly thought, yes I will vote for this but now I have voted against, realizing that this is not the way things should be done, one large gathering of people deciding the laws of many nations.

1 In my home town a person was drunk fell over and sued the government then won
2 A criminal was robbing a house the owner woke up shot him with a shotgun the pellets damaged his back he sued for loss of earnings because he could not do his job (robbery)

what is this :? :roll:

It's stupidity, I agree, but I've not seen anything like it outside of the United States.

This does not have to be a mandate issued to every nations. Instead, it could easily be interpreted and issued as a code for Inter-UN transactions. Remember, this is a global economy and there is a good bit of trade between the nations. What happens if a basket maker in my country makes a faulty basket that injures one of your citizens. In the resulting lawsuit, who's code governs? There needs to be an international Tort code

That's a valid issue, and one on which you're probably right. However, the resolution needs to be written to reflect it, and in this case, that would mean a 100% rewrite. Basically, I could get behind something along the lines of "Any tort case involving a product imported from another member state shall be governed by the laws and procedures of the state in which the end purchase was made." In other words, if you export to a country, be prepared to abide by its legal code. Obviously, that's an entirely different resolution than the so-called "Common Sense Act II".

There are abuses in this system, which the resolution attempts to correct and this amendment does correct.

Actually, no it doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even start to correct any abuses, though it is slightly better than the original resolution. As someone pointed out in another thread, frivolous lawsuits will still be filed, only now, instead of letting the courts do their job, a whole new bureaucracy will have to be put into place to separate the frivolous from the valid. This is like trying to outlaw stupid resolutions. Try as you might, it can never work, because some will not realize their resolutions are stupid and others will think they can be the one to get away with a stupid resolution. Sadly, none of CSA II's supporters seem to be grasping the largest issues brought against the act. I see Fantasan characterizing it as people thinking it unfair for burglars not to be able to sue the homeowner, etc. (very mature, I might add) and this amendment basically rewording and solidifying a little bit of language in it when the entire premise is unworkable and both erodes individual civil rights and undermines national sovereignty.

It is not fair or ethical to make an alleged tortfeasor pay damages when it is not solely responsible for the alleged harm.

It's not? So, if I'm 90% responsible for your broken back, not only can you not work to earn a living, but because I'm not solely responsible, I don't have to pay you a dime? Woohoo!

As of this morning on September 11th, the votes for this proposal are now *below* 2/3; since it doesn't look like this resolution will fail, it does look like it will pass with less than 2/3.

This makes the need to change the percentage for passage of resolutions to 2/3 all that much more obvious.

The basic problem is this: Life is risky. Taking a risk shouldn't automatically make you fair game for anybody who want to take advantage of you.

Why not ? That´s EXACTLY how real life is once you see through the thin veil of civilisation that blinds most people. You can get away with anything if you´re smart enough. That´s social darwinism in it´s purest form for you. So why not legalize the status quo ?

As of this morning on September 11th, the votes for this proposal are now *below* 2/3; since it doesn't look like this resolution will fail, it does look like it will pass with less than 2/3.

This makes the need to change the percentage for passage of resolutions to 2/3 all that much more obvious.

The results of my poll on the 2/3 question was 103(86%) for
and only 16(13%) against. When this thread was locked the poll also
became locked. But I think it is obvious that an overwhelming majority support the idea.

The basic problem with most of the UN resolutions, including this one, is taht it violates issues of national sovereignty. Has the charter of this august body changed or have national concerns been subordinated to the needs of a few?

<b>Caer</b>

The nature of this body has never been concrete. It's nature has developed organically with the passing of each new resolution. As previous resolutions have dictated orders to the governments of the member states, indirectly affecting the courts, it is perfectly within the bounds of this body to dictate an order like this to the collective legislatures and courts.

<b>The Idiot Wind</b>

The nature of international conflict is when two ore more sovereign nations refuse to bow to the other's sovereignty. The UN was created to provide a "neutral but sovereign" in these instances, so that a peaceful solution may be resolved. Therefore, when two nations commercial codes differ greatly or where one is blatantly lopsided, the parties fall back to the always-sovereign UN Commercial Code. Also, your example of "where the purchase was made" is too vague. Sales are often agreed to in one state or country, but processed in another. Where then is the sale actually made? This vagueness presents a problem in the courts as it is, and it would be pointless to complicate the resolution and this amendment with that.

And to counteract your argument on the creation or widening of the already massive beaurocracy, neither the resolution or this amendment affect any government body beyond the already established legal authorities of the member states.

As to your broken back argument, it is without weight. Even if I do commit negligent or reckless behavior, it is harmless until your own negligence puts you into a situation where you are harmed.

Go back and re-read, because you completely missed the point. This resolution, even amended, is completely different from what you are now saying it needs to and will do. That's the bottom line.

For the record, my statement was a general idea, not a resolution. But good job siezing on that as a means of avoiding the actual debate.

To your supposed counterargument on bureaucracy, who is going to decide which lawsuits are frivolous? Either the courts, which they already do and which makes this an absolutely pointless resolution, or some other agency, which would have to be created for the purpose. Regardless of what the resolution specifically states, that is the practical truth of the matter.

Harmless, yet by your own statement, you would hold me indemnible because it was not my sole responisibility. In fact, by your own admission of your negligence, this resolution seeks to deny you your day in court. What is without weight is your amendment, the resolution as a whole, and every defense I've seen of it.

Also, for the record, where a purchase is agreed upon is irrelevant to where a purchase is made. It's not really rocket surgery and can be easily determined by location of shipment/use of the purchased goods. If I'm a German company, you're a Japanese company, we meet for some skiing in Switzerland, and while we're there you agree to buy some widgets from me, I know I'm selling them into Japan, or if your facility is in, say, Korea, I know that I'm selling them into Korea. Our location at the time of agreement is not an issue.

^@%#$ DP

Widgets? Is that like crack?

Almost exactly like it, except widgets are imaginary, harmless and legal.

I now understand where your country got it's name.

This will not result in an enlargment of or the creation of a new beaurocracy whatsoever. It would simply redefine what is allowable in the courts as far as a tort case. It will be added into each countries bar associations rule books, it will alter the teaching in the law schools, and will be published in each countries equivalents to West and Lexis.

How, Idiot, is this creating more beaurocracy? Also, how can you validate the concept of holding someone else liable for your injuries caused by your lack of responsibility?

Idiot

To point out the flaws in your "point of sale" argument would require the rough equivalent of a full semester of introductory contracts as well as a run through of the jurisdictional issues inherent in civil procedure.

Since I do not have the time to explain it all, I will result to the simple sentence of "Study up, bub, there's a lot to learn".

On the International level I believe you will find that agreement usually covering heath and risk concerns is dealt with mainly by the World Trade Organisation, primarily through the GATT agreements. A recent joint UN (World Health Organisation) and WTO publication http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres02_e/pr310_e.htm seems to indicate some movement in this area. As for other related international disputes, I’m not sure whether the World Court deals in this area…

On the ‘point of purchase’ issue, the responsibility in this area usually lays with the customs departments of individual countries or in some cases the individual retailers.

The amendments proposed, however, do little to mitigate the failings of the original proposal. It doesn’t need amending; it needs to be scrapped and rewritten. There are obviously concerns that there are many loopholes in member states legal systems which allow for extraordinary, vexatious, frivolous and downright criminal litigations to be upheld or even brought to court in the first place. However, this proposal and all the rushed attempts at amendment, does nothing more than institute a stupid and unworkable set of caveats in the area of law. Its very vagueness only opens the door for a further complication of already overworked and underfunded judicial and administrative mechanisms.

Just one interesting point though on this proposals effect on member states. Those with federal systems (like as Australia, Stakanovia, Germany, US, etc.) that agree that this is a bloody stupid proposal (amended or not) can completely ignore the implementation in it in its various States. International Agreements are agreed upon by the Federal Government and not enforceable upon individual States unless the Federal Government chooses to use their 'External Powers’ to do so. Or, in some cases, where states or individuals choose to appeal to international bodies with whom their country has such an agreement with.

Basically, what Stakanovia is saying is that at this point, if this resolution passes, it will lie dormant on the books of the Federal Government, its Executive and Judiciary, but will not be forced upon individual States.

Peoples Commissar
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

Of course it would, if we were trying to model the real world exactly. You, however, wanted to take an expression of general idea and run with it, so I obliged, and showed how it could be handled with about thirty seconds worth of dealing with it in a proposal. All of this is beside the point, however, that your amendment, and the resolution as a whole, is useless at best and that a better use of your time would be to "result to" authoring a completely different resolution to accomplish what you say this one does, yet is not even addressed by it.

This proposal, as many others have noted, undermines our domestic courts. This is wrong. It is not up to a global organisation, such as the UN, to dictate to member states on domestic issues. Now it would be easy to say take your tiny little country and rack off out of the UN. However, we are not alone in this sentiment. Our courts are ours, and ours they should stay.