NationStates Jolt Archive

I have proposed a resolution regarding the establishment of an international court. (Don't worry, it is not in any way all-encompassing...)

Description: With globalization's effects being felt more and more in this age, the potential for legal disputes between countries is increasing. In many cases, if a crime is committed, various parties are interested in putting the criminal to trial within their own borders. The criminal's native country, the country in which the crime was committed, and the country where the suspect was captured all may be interested in putting the suspect on trial. In order to eliminate such disputes, be it resolved that the United Nations will establish an international court. Such a court would not have endless jurisdiction, but would instead oversee only cases in which multiple nations are competing for the power to hold the trial. This court will be able to solve many disputed legal cases, and could prevent conflicts over legal interests. In order to further encourage international cooperation, every nation would have a place on the court.


Let me know of any thoughts you have, or changes you would like to have made.

Thanks!

The Sultanate of Burma AND Myanmar

I'm a firm believer in the power of paragraphs. First thing I want to do is make it more readable

Description:
With globalization's effects being felt more and more in this age, the potential for legal disputes between countries is increasing. In many cases, if a crime is committed, various parties are interested in putting the criminal to trial within their own borders. The criminal's native country, the country in which the crime was committed, and the country where the suspect was captured all may be interested in putting the suspect on trial.

1: In order to eliminate such disputes, be it resolved that the United Nations will establish an international court.

2: Such a court would not have endless jurisdiction, but would instead oversee only cases in which multiple nations are competing for the power to hold the trial.

3: This court will be able to solve many disputed legal cases, and could prevent conflicts over legal interests.

4: In order to further encourage international cooperation, every nation would have a place on the court.

----------------------------

2: Needs to be clarified quite a bit. A simpler statement of jurisdictional authority would make more sense.

3: Get rid of the word "many". Define the jurisdictions better.

4: 36,000 members? No way. A rotating membership, randomly drawn from the members, consisting of perhaps 15 judges. A nation could choose to decline and nominate a replacement, or accept the next random choice.

That's just a first glance. More later if I think of it, and in response to others.

Thank you for your thoughts!

I noticed that it was rather difficult to read after I posted it. My apologies.

Regarding clarifications -- If I were to revise this resolution, I would likely include a clause that required nations to report any case that they were going to put on trial to the court. In the event that more than one nation attempted to try the same case, the court would step in.

As far as a rotating membership with 15 judges...well, I just don't think that would be effective. Such a membership would only lead to the possibility for misrepresentation. A group of 15 can not adequately represent 36,000 diverse nations. There needs to be participation from all, not just a few.

Any further commentary would be greatly appreciated!

As far as a rotating membership with 15 judges...well, I just don't think that would be effective. Such a membership would only lead to the possibility for misrepresentation. A group of 15 can not adequately represent 36,000 diverse nations. There needs to be participation from all, not just a few.
Imagine a statium filled with judges. Each of them needs to listen to the testimony. Each of them needs to judge the reactions, emotions, and facial expressions of the petitioners. Let's say you decide to put it all on a big screen for them to watch. Then it's up to very few cameramen to capture all the subtlties of the actions. Sorry, it can't work.

You can't get that many people to watch a soccer match without 10% of them out of their seats peeing or getting something to eat. You want to entrust decisions of national import while eating popcorn?

15 judges is too few. OK - set up a series of lesser Appellate Courts with a dozen or so judges on each, and a Supreme Court with 50 or 60 members. Does the majority rule, or do they all have to agree? Should we require a supermajority of 60%? What if it's not a yes/no question? What if 15 nations claim a newly risen continent?

Lots of questions in this one. Not many answers. Just as a suggestion, why not post your idea here before posting it as a Proposal? This one needs a lot of work before it's ready to hit the Big Room - why clutter up the system until it's ready?

Thanks as always for the polite, constructive remarks...yeah...

I will certainly look into rewriting this resolution for the future. I wanted to see thoughts on the idea, and after all, people don't *have* to vote on it if they see it. No one really gets hurt by my proposal.

I'll work on the rewriting over the next few days.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like to thank the ambassador of Frisbeeteria for taking the time and effort to make the proposal more easily read.

We would not support an international court to try multi-jurisdictional cases. We MIGHT be interested in debating the creation of a court to determine which nation has jurisdiction over a criminal and/or first right of refusal to prosecute.

In any event, we think that any existing extradition agreements and treaties are sufficient to address these points, and don't think this proposal is even needed.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

No because i do not like handing my legal cases to someone else, and also if the council became corrupted then what happens they have to much power, so no. :)


My little correction :wink:

i think that the problem with judges could be solved by having a representative from each region that applies for the court in other words things would not be decided by individual nations but by a whole region and only regions that apply for it this would greatly reduce the number of judges. Also each member region could have a vote for each of its members on what position they will take so that it is the decision of the region and not the one appointed by it. And i think it should be done by majority rules

i think that the problem with judges could be solved by having a representative from each region that applies for the court in other words things would not be decided by individual nations but by a whole region and only regions that apply for it this would greatly reduce the number of judges. Also each member region could have a vote for each of its members on what position they will take so that it is the decision of the region and not the one appointed by it. And i think it should be done by majority rules


I am still not convinced

With the critique of the original proposal being strongly noted, I have decided to overhaul this resolution and once again propose it. Thanks to all who offered commentary.
The resolution is as follows:

Description: With globalization's effects being felt more and more in this age, the potential for legal disputes between countries is increasing. In many cases, if a crime is committed, various parties are interested in putting the criminal to trial within their own borders. The criminal's native country, the country in which the crime was committed, and the country where the suspect was captured all may be interested in putting the suspect on trial. In order to eliminate such disputes, be it resolved that the United Nations will establish an international court.

1. This court will not have endless jurisdiction -- it will only oversee cases in which multiple countries are competing over the right to hold a certain trial.

2. Whenever a country is holding a trial involving the international community (i.e. the crime was committed oversees, or the suspect is a foreign national) it will report this trial to the international court.

3. If more than one country files a report for the same trial, the court will step in.

4. 100 randomly-selected jurors from the UN will vote on the case.

5. After hearing basic arguments, the court will vote as to which country is able to hold the trial. If no single country gains at least a 65% majority, then the international court will hold the trial itself.

6. Countries have the option of not sending a juror to a particular case if they are selected.

7. No country who is involved with the case being tried can be on the jury.


Thank you!

- The Sultanate of Burma AND Myanmar

By the way -- any further commentary is certainly welcome. :)

This resolution has been removed by the moderator.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if they bother reading the proposals, or if they just go by whatever some bitter person complained about.

Anyone who can figure it out...let me know!

The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore agrees with the general idea of an International Court.

Our advice to the nation of Burma AND Myanmar would be to keep the resolution fairly simple and general. Details and specifics are good up to a point. As long as the proposal follows common sense, it should be fine. These details have little effect on the actual function of the resolution itself, so we personally would limit them to the bare minimum required to express the idea.

We express regret that the resolution was removed, and hope that it will be given new life in the future. We have not personally done so, but it could not hurt to check previous resolutions to see if there is one similar in name or purpose.

Best of Luck!

Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore
1 National Avenue
Constantinopolis

This resolution has been removed by the moderator.

I'm seriously starting to wonder if they bother reading the proposals, or if they just go by whatever some bitter person complained about.

Anyone who can figure it out...let me know!
I read it. It was all about changing game mechanics. It died.

You know?

If you could elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.

The distinction between changing and not changing game mechanics is not very clear anywhere. It's vague.

You know?

This was the same cause given for the deleted Lottery proposal.

It seems to be something about creating a body or organization within the UN that actually seems to be a game-sanctioned body. Your imaginary court had the potential to be a source of appeal for various role-play situations that could not be settled by the parties in RP. When they attempted to appeal to the Court (which is clearly listed as an Passed Resolution), the mods end up fielding irate questions about why they aren't being treated fairly by this non-existent Court.

We're still seeing about one bitch-thread a week, appealing to the non-existent Secretary General. I suspect this is more of the same.

I'm beginning to think that any time a resolution proposes a new system the moderators eat it, even if it doesn't require code to be written. While I do believe certain proposal are of a game-mechanic-changing (ie: 35% flat taxes), it seems the rest are just a way to expand role playing potential here in the forums. No one has to write code to make a court system, they just have to sit down in the forum, claim to have an international dispute, and let the role play take care of itself. Seems that by eliminating everything that even smells slightly of game-mechanics you're taking out a lot of ground away for resolutions.

I'm beginning to think that any time a resolution proposes a new system the moderators eat it, even if it doesn't require code to be written. While I do believe certain proposal are of a game-mechanic-changing (ie: 35% flat taxes), it seems the rest are just a way to expand role playing potential here in the forums. No one has to write code to make a court system, they just have to sit down in the forum, claim to have an international dispute, and let the role play take care of itself. Seems that by eliminating everything that even smells slightly of game-mechanics you're taking out a lot of ground away for resolutions.
Maybe so. As far as courts go, there have been two International Courts in NationStates history - one was founded by Whittier roughly a year ago and slowly disintegrated (to my memory) over claims of ex post facto jurisdiction. The second was a joint effort from Kitsylvania and me and disappeared due to my elevation to moderator-ship and the fact that that meant I could not assist with the judgements as much as possible.
Players are more than welcome to create a third Court. Indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that I'd be happy to help out with one, although not in any kind of Judge/Juror capacity.
What will happen here if a Court is created by UN proposal (or rather, if such a resolution is passed, since passage won't automatically rewrite the game to allow a court) is exactly as Frisbeeteria has suggested. People will wonder where the court is, why they can't manage to access it from their screens, why it decided this way or that way in cases. More to the point, they'll be more than likely to turn these questions my way. If the Court is purely for RP purposes, then I won't be able to answer them. If the proposal was actually for a rewrite of the game, then clearly that won't happen. Either way, the proposal system itself is the wrong way to get the desired result.

I guess I'm giving the members of this game more credit than they deserve, then. But, if the brain-cell quota is really that low among nations, I suppose I can't argue with keeping the moderators' mailboxes clean. It's just a shame that it has to come down like that.

Statement rescinded.

I guess I'm giving the members of this game more credit than they deserve, then. But, if the brain-cell quota is really that low among nations, I suppose I can't argue with keeping the moderators' mailboxes clean. It's just a shame that it has to come down like that.

Statement rescinded.
"OMG I N00K J00" always serves as a good proof of low brain cell count in new nations, I find. :wink:

No hard feelings, Sophista.

I guess I'm giving the members of this game more credit than they deserve, then. But, if the brain-cell quota is really that low among nations, I suppose I can't argue with keeping the moderators' mailboxes clean. It's just a shame that it has to come down like that.

Statement rescinded.
"OMG I N00K J00" always serves as a good proof of low brain cell count in new nations, I find. :wink:

No hard feelings, Sophista.

Color me elitist, but I tend to shy away from those sides of forums. In visual context, its like sitting in your high-rise condo on the nice side of town and shuddering as you look across the river to the slums. Granted, this forum has its moments as well, but you can't win them all. Something tells me that if such a court were legislated, the nations you're talking about wouldn't be the ones involved. They'd be too busing n00king one another to bother reading the big words and basic grammar involved with a international legal dispute.

Anywho, back to blissful ignorance of that class.

I agree that there are a few different general groups (see im not elitist!) of people that play the game. This poses a problem (in my humble opinion) with the UN itself... Many of the voting members are yea-sayers or "sheep" who read the proposal (hopefully) and vote yes. Often everyone in the forums agrees to vote against a resolution for legitimate reasons, but they are simply swamped with sheep votes.

This is a problem with democracy in general. Within the game, it is compounded by the problem of no repeal (which I fully understand is caused by game mechanics etc etc ).

I have also noted that forum-goers have ranks according to the number of posts they have. Perhaps the solution would be to give more votes to people who visit and post in the forums. I have not proposed anything, and I am just opening this up to discussion. I hope that a few people (maybe even mods) might give me some feedback!!

Sincerely;

Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore