NationStates Jolt Archive

Approaching Quorum.

Direct link to proposal to approve: Right of Appeal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1?match=Right%20of%20Appeal)

Here's the right of Appeal proposal. Basically protects criminal right of appeal, which I think is accepted in most democratic nations. The idea is to allow a person to appeal on based on new evidence (reasonable grounds) at any time. Here's the text. Feel free to comment or support.


Right of Appeal

The General Assembly recognises that:

- The right of appeal is an essential component of justice and due process;
- That no justice system is infallible;
- The right of appeal is essential to minimise the injustice caused by inevitable incorrect decisions of a justice system;
- From time to time, governments may seek to use the justice system in an unjust manner;
- From time to time, public opinion or conscience may arise due to current events or otherwise that results in an unjust decision being made;
- In particular circumstances, an unjust decision may be made as a result of people involved in or events surrounding the justice system at the time.

As a result, the General Assembly declares that all member states and their justice systems shall:

(1) Recognise the right of appeal on reasonable grounds for all criminal defendants; AND
(2) Not take any action nor confer any punishment on any criminal defendant which directly eliminates or unnecessarily restricts that persons right of appeal or ability to appeal a judgement against the criminal defendant at any time in the future.

A criminal defendant is one who is accused of an act which carries a penalty of:
- A criminal record; AND/OR
- A gaol term, house arrest or similar restriction of movement; AND/OR
- Any direct physical punishment with intent to cause pain and/or bodily harm.



Edits:
July 24th: Changed "accused of a crime" to "accused of an act". (Removes circular definition).

I'll ask my delegate to support this.

We in Greenspoint see this whole issue as a National one, and one that the United Nations has no need to address.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint
UNSC Director

We in Greenspoint see this whole issue as a National one, and one that the United Nations has no need to address.

I'd argue this is a fundamental right that needs to be upheld by the NS UN.

We in Greenspoint see this whole issue as a National one, and one that the United Nations has no need to address.

This proposal is in a similar vain to the Freedom of Press proposal, which passed with a greater than 75% majority. It is also less invassive than the current proposal, which requires a United Nations permit to cut down a tree to be used by a company.

5. Heavy fines and on any company using none WWP certified wood.

If the current proposal passes, you don't need a council permit to cut down a tree in your backyard and make a few chairs and tables to sell, you need a United Nations permit. Considering that, I'd rather this rather mundane proposal in the queue than some of the more radical ones that seem to be passing.

You may be disapointed that the United Nations is passing and enforcing such democratic resolutions on your nation, but considering that the United Nations is a democratic organisation, it has taken on the role of fighting for and protecting democracy at the very least its member states, in an attempt to show an example to the rest of the world. I and most other United Nation members feel democracy is important and should be protected at the international level, as shown by resolutions such as the Freedom of Press.

You make some valid points; however, it is not the UN's duty to protect democracy. There are many undemocratic nations in the UN and they have the sovereign right to remain undemocratic. Nonetheless, we believe this proposal has merit and does not unduly interfere with national sovereignty. Good luck.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the United Nations

There are many undemocratic nations in the UN and they have the sovereign right to remain undemocratic.

Browsing through the past UN resolutions, the UN doesn't seem to be of the opinion that nations do have the soverign right to be undemocratic, at least in the usual sence.

I refer to resolutions

- "Citizen Rule Required" under the category "The Furtherment of Democracy" which gaurentees some form of citizen self rule on the local, regional or national level.
- "Stop privacy intrusion" which prevents monitering of citizens.
- "Fair trial"
- "Universal Bill of Rights" which guarentees freedom of speech and religion, as does "Freedom of Press"

So any undemocratic nation in the UN must at least give its citizens some form of local or regional control, not moniter their citizens, have a fair judicial system, and not interfere with religious or press freedom. Admitted some nations can be undemocratic if they do so in a 'democratic' way, namely, respecting the above freedoms. However, undemocratic nations that abuse the above freedoms do not have the sovereign right to do so unless they leave the UN, as unlike real life, all UN resolutions are enforced on all UN members.

Good luck.

Thank you for your support.

This reminds me... about time I re-introduced Habeas Corpus.

This proposal got 40 approvals last time through, without any telegramming. I've been away for a week, so I'm going to resubmit it, with a minor edit. I will telegram the previous supporters.

Right of Appeal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1?match=Right%20of%20Appeal) seems to going well this time through, as of writing, it has 90 approvals, and needs only another 45 to reach quorum. So if you want to support this proposal, now might be a good time.

Thanks.