NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering how many of you would be in support of creating a supreme court of say 20 pr 30 elected members that could review laws we have passed. People could petition the supreme court to change decisions based on law throughout the world. I think this would add a very new and exciting element to nation states. Justices would serve say three months and then have to be reelected (no life terms). We could set up the supreme court as a sticky page where decisions are wrought. It would not cause any problems and moderators could set it up without costing the creator any money or effort.

The Holy Empire of Juanky likes the idea.

His Royal Highness belives this is a good idea, but would like to see a resolution before we supported the idea. Perhaps the judges could be appointed by the UN Secretary-General. (Whoever that is)

I would support it, though I propose the court be bigger considering the size of the current United Nations and Nation States in general. I think 1000 nations or so would be fitting considering there are over 100,000 nations in the NS.

If someone would show or tell me how to write a piece of legislation for NS I would love to write it.

The Grand Duchy of All the Russias supports the idea. Then perhaps laws that the UN has no business passing (i.e. euthanasia laws) can be thrown out.

Her Imperial Mayesty completly agrees whit States of Stepheson

His Majesty agrees with his brother monarchs that such a thing would be good for the populace - as long as there is no interference with The Divine Right of Kings

The Supreme Court would only deal with UN and not National (kinda like state) issues.

We need a Constituton first...

Who is secretary general?

And i think it is a good idea, it would rid us off the terrible resolutions of pass, though this should be tech if it doesn't get many responses here you should recreate it in tech,

8) :D

It is a good idea, but because it changes the game mechanics it won't happen.

I have been thinking about a constitution. I was about to start another thread on it. But before I do, can someone give me some ideas???

I have been thinking about a constitution. I was about to start another thread on it. But before I do, can someone give me some ideas???

Will it even happen?

Perhaps this is something to be done for NS2....

It is a good idea, but because it changes the game mechanics it won't happen.



I don't think he was going to put this idea in a U.N proposal :wink:

It is a good idea, but because it changes the game mechanics it won't happen.

I don't think he was going to put this idea in a U.N proposal :wink:

Well, it's still gonna require changes that will need to be done by [violet].

Well hopefully this can be done in NS 2 but do you thin it's a good idea? :?:

Well hopefully this can be done in NS 2 but do you thin it's a good idea? :?:

Yeah, of course I think it's a good idea. It could allow for effective appeal of UN resolutions, which is something we need.

Well hopefully this can be done in NS 2 but do you thin it's a good idea? :?:

Yeah, of course I think it's a good idea. It could allow for effective appeal of UN resolutions, which is something we need.


Should we post it on the NS 2 forum?

Well hopefully this can be done in NS 2 but do you thin it's a good idea? :?:

Yeah, of course I think it's a good idea. It could allow for effective appeal of UN resolutions, which is something we need.


Should we post it on the NS 2 forum?

interesting but can it happen? And that would mean there would have to be a world supreme courtm which would mean there would have to be a world consitution, and wouldn't that lead to a world goverement, and wouldn't that ruin the game?

I think this is a wonderful idea, however someone posted having a very large number of justices, this I don't feel is a good idea. Keep it small, as was mentioned to that it doesn't get out of hand!

The Confederacy of Kelleysland is against a "United Nations Supreme Court" in principle. Allow me to elaborate on our rationale behind our position.
Kelleysland is a soverign nation, & refuses to submit any measure of our soverignity to any foreign power. Being a responsible nation, & having concern for the well-being of all citizens of the world, we joined the UN in an effort to show our good faith in regard to international relations, & to encourage cooperation between nations.
Kelleysland fully supports the principle of nullification, in regard to binding UN resolutions. Though we do respect the game administration, we reserve the right to nullify any UN resolution (just within our borders...this is not an attempt to start trouble :D ) that we deem as detrimental to the interests of the Confederacy of Kelleysland.

We would support this if it were only open to nations and not individuals.
Allowing appeals by individuals would be too chaotic.

Maybe restricting it to regions would be even more manageable.

:( This is a horrendous proposal. Each nation must have the right to determine their own destiny and laws. And to be a stupid as humanly possible. The U.N. can impose sanctions and embargo and nations can ban together to co-erce change, but ultimately the individualk nation must decide. We would all be ceding our rights to big brother

We would support this if it were only open to nations and not individuals.
Allowing appeals by individuals would be too chaotic.

Maybe restricting it to regions would be even more manageable.

Catholic Europe agrees with this. There are too many people (and too many nations) for it to be successful and not get swamped down by the workload which would be enormous if it was open to individuals.

While we believe that this idea is sound, the RCO offers some suggestions for consideration.

1.) Instead of a "Supreme Court" per se, perhaps better would be some kind of "upper house," like a Senate or House of Lords. Its powers would be limited to reviewing a passed resolution, and either letting it stand or vetoing it. It could not interpret or "modify" the resolution, but merely give it a yes or no vote.

2.) Related to this, perhaps election is not the best idea. Indeed, it seems the voting element of these resolutions is what causes such a firestorm of protests. Perhaps better would be an automatic choice of members by seniority (i.e. longest continuous membership in the UN). This way, we can rely on these states' experience on resolutions, which would better ensure that they can distinguish between resolutions that are bad and resolutions they merely disagree with.

3.) As mentioned by another earlier, 20-30 may be too small. Under this automatic measure, perhaps 500 or so might be better.

In any case, just some thoughts.

With Repsect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

The key of course in all this, is the constitution. Simply creating a supreme court would mean that a small body of nations could overturn a decision of the majority. Rather, a constitution should simply cover what is in the UN's mandate. The UN supreme court would then simply decide whether or not a resolution is outside of its mandate.

The constitution could then be used to look at previous resolutions and retroactively amend them. An ongoing constitution complete with amendments will help to preserve the sovereignty of nations, while addressing issues which affect the world at large.

If someone is willing to draft that first basic constitution, it could be put forth as a UN resolution for the world body to vote on. The Mechanism which is used to amend and interpret it could be drafted second.

Mabey a lottery of all active UN member nations could decide. Each nation chosen selects a delegate and sends it to the Supreme Court. It could also be done with regions.

The Allied States of Frisbeeteria have made a suggestion which is even now under consideration. Those who manage the arcane substructure of the United Nations are even now studying the plausibility of enacting it. We encourage all UN members to add their suggestions to the topic:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113087

To summarize, we propose a less exclusive "Supreme Court" which already exists. We currently have 2,328 Regional Delegates (UNRDs), each of whom represents a Region. Those Delegates already have the power to Approve proposals. The Frisbeeterian Proposal suggests adding the power of Rejection by Delegates.

As it currently stands, only passive methods of objection are available to UNRDs. This proposal would permit active rejection to their arsenal of diplomatic tactics. If a proposal offends a substantial number of us, we would exercise our votes to Table or Reject the proposed bill, and it would quietly wither away without ever being presented to the UN membership at large.

Since it is the At Large vote that passed the Euthanasia proposal despite vehement objection here in the Forums, this would give UNRDs the opportunity to nip it in the bud, as it were. Awful proposals would never reach the floor.

Delegates, only a few of us have expressed our opinions on how such a system would be structured. Please, we implore you, click the link above and make your views be known. Those who understand the shrouded mysteries of the UN voting systems (sometimes known as SalusaSecondus) await only our input before enacting our desires. Let them know your will!

M.J. Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria.

the NAtion of Henry Kissenger is against the idea.

Red emiric provences are also against the idea. This is a blatant attempt to enforce a heirarchy of more powerful nations. its totally undemocratic and may seal forever the reputation of many leading members as being complete arses.

the NAtion of Henry Kissenger is against the idea.

Why are you against the idea?

The supreme court would only effect the UN and no one else. It would not effect nations. However, leaving bad laws without a recourse is a horrendous idea.

The supreme court would only effect the UN and no one else. It would not effect nations. However, leaving bad laws without a recourse is a horrendous idea.

Have you suggested this in Technical?

In principle, His Hippocratic Highness supports your ideas of a Supreme Court and Constitution, as long as it does not affect our sovereign powers and is only involved with UN proposals and resolutions. Any attempt to usurp the sovereign powers of governments or interfere with the Divine Right of HHH Hippo CXVIII to rule Hipposhire will, however, be met with serious opposition. :x

Tread carefully and good luck to you. :D

Sir Hippo MacHippo
Lord Chancellor of the Hippohouse
The Holy Empire of Hipposhire

A constitution implies government authority. For what is supposed to be a non-sovereign international forum, a Charter would be more appropriate.

I mean a real charter. One that describes the powers and limitations of the organization, the rights and responsibilities of the members, the duties of the officers, the process for redress of grievances, etc.

Somehow including a way to use real parlimentary procedure, not necessarily Robert's Rules, we could make up our own system like the US House and Senate, would make the UN better. It would require knowledge and skill and influence to pass resolutions, rather than just a catchy title.

Another possibility would be, instead of automatic complience, the possibility of partial compliance or non-compliance with the resolutions by members (kind of like the real thing) with the choice shown on the page. Were someone to catch them, there could be an excomunication vote (where, of course, every Yea vote would be hounded for the next year to see if they ever fail to comply) thus bringing real responsibility to decisions in the UN.

It might also make sense to hold a Charter Convention, all nations invited with only current members allowed to vote or some such set of rules, to write the charter, submit it to the UN as a resolution, and if it passes, make the appropriate non-technical changes. Obviously, any technical aspects we would have to petition of God, Max Barry, and the Secretary General, failing that maybe Kofi Anon can lend a hand.

This would all need to be brought up again in Tech. Whoever does that should indicate it in these postings so people know to switch over.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles

Good idea but hard to reach. Who says the members won't be corrupt?