NationStates Jolt Archive

The "International Court of Justice" proposal, approved by moderators (Sirocco & Cogitation).

Category: Human rights
Strenght: Strong

The green text is the reply to most of the common ideas against this resolution

Wiki article about the RL ICJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICJ

§1-Preamble
The International Court of Justice,established as the principal judicial organ of the UN,shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.

I-ORGANIZATION

§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.
2.The Court shall consist of 15 members,no 2 of whom may be from the same state.
3.The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

I never heard about diplomats that aren't persecuted for kill people of similar. Please make more intelligent comments about this. And 15 members is a good choice. US Supreme court is formed by only 9 judges.

4.The Court shall elect its President,Vice-President and Registrar for 3 years;they may be re-elected.
5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary.

Double Salary is due to be sure that Judges elected are not obliged to refuse the mandate for poor salary which can not substain them.

§3-Mandate
1.The members shall be elected for 9 years and may be re-elected.
2.The members shall continue to discharge their duties until their places have been filled.Though replaced,they shall finish any cases which they may have begun.
3.No member may exercise any political or administrative function,or engage in any other occupation of a professional nature.

Because this type of process will be more long, it's obvoous that a longer mandate is better. And remember that US Supreme court has life mandate, Italy 7 years.

II-COMPETENCE

§4-Jurisdiction
1.The jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters provided on conventions,treatiest,except where an existing international body already deals with the issues,and:
a.the interpretation of a treaty
b.any question of international law
c.the breach of an international obligation.
2.The Court shall apply:
a.international conventions
b.international custom
c.the general principles of law.

Like Prenatema Protocol?

III-PROCEDURE

§5-Parties of the process
1.Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.
2.The Court may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it.

For all persons that still say that the Court will be unfair in process againts single persons. About dictators, they are formally the Head of State, then they are persecuted as State.

§6–Delegation
The parties shall be represented by agents,with the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court.They shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties.

§7-Documents
1.The official languages shall be French and English,but the Court shall authorize the use of other languages.

If you don't like Frenchs, this is on RL. Please not consider you only Americans

2.The written proceedings shall consist of the communication to the Court and to the parties of memorials and counter-memorials.

§8-Hearing
1.The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses,experts,agents,counsel,and advocates.
2.The hearing in Court shall be public.
3.During the hearing any relevant questions are to be put to the witnesses and experts.
4.After the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose,it may refuse to accept any further evidence.
6.When the agents,counsel,and advocates have completed their presentation of the case,the President shall declare the hearing closed.
7.The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

§9-Judgement
1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.
2.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based,it shall contain the names of the judges andshall be read in open court.
3.The judgment is final and without appeal.

Modern Legal System is based on layer of courts: local, distict and Supreme courts (generally). Any Supreme Court judgment is final and without appeal, because this is the pilaster of the entire system. If the last layer could have appeal, when a trial could finish? Obviously the loser of the trial could continue to appeal, and the trial will not stop. If ICJ is not the final court, which could be? The General Assembly? But if you don't like politicizated choices, GA is the most policitizated UN body.

The last list of approving delegate. It seems that the next time we can achieve the qorum!

Approvals: 128 (The Fro Royal Family, Windleheim, Melmond, Gaiah, Grim Talents, La Havre Du Grace, Reginaslav, Alterina, WZ Forums, Yelda, Steenia, Short Welsh People, Kevin Islands, Ghaard Allamia, Zhukhistan, Outremont, Safj, Monadnock, Beld, Nan Og, North Monaghan, Sclafani, High Spiritus, Evil Woody Thoughts, Limster, Adomenticus, JayRoddia, The Derrak Quadrant, Topple, Ceterusparibus, Klashonite, Kelsennia, Beeradvocatestan, Coco Mango, Velnos, Kyndcat, Yafor 2, Dailar, Americas Liberals, Danabunga, Al-Zar, Darkwater9, Snufflelufflegus Land, Michael 02, Alomogordo, Saysomething, Ceskeland, America---, Contrickster, Predatorica, North Atlantic Nations, Masiania, Orioni 2, Ministria, Knuckles Promised Land, Harkoneia, Tiagra, WoS-Badrang, Gilbekistan, Greater Kamigawa, The Cariebbean, Beach Bay, Markismygod, North Koster, St Kandyland, Tiber City, Tal Maritima, Los Gringos Locos, Northern Caesarea, Borgoa, Dizziness, Little India, Presqu-Isle, Das freie Land, Old Canaan, Nauvus, Amerieurostralia, Alesteria, Naval Snipers, JS Nijmegen, Blijia, The Hollow Eye, Kemdoph, Gamepsilon, The Potatohead Tribe, Frickendevil, The Great Honey Bear, Hado-Kusanagi, Lisknatsiya, Czech Minutemen, Angon, Pop N Music, Cowschickens, Tierra del Queso, Novus Terra Reborn, Hollerback, New Happyworld Land, The Talisman, Green Forrest People, Finbergia, Fenor, Asshelmetta, Aztec National League, Memorial Park, Topheric Knowledge, Maxitron, Jaglor, Mehleesser, Bloodmoon-Hyperion, Ehrenbreitstein, Sameerland, BLARGistania, Hugyland, Democrat Refugees, Schwartzhood, DrexSide, Master Tom, King Charles I, Krioval, Bellulus, The Holy Samurai, Republic of Freedonia, The Dog God, Mad McGobbo, Noobsville, Pantocratoria, Corrumpere, Ballyvolane)

Simply remember that the proposal ends on 16, and now there are already 100 approvals.

Enlighten me. How precisely do you propose for the United Nations to find an impartial set of laws to work with? General principles of international law vary based upon time and place, and no diverse group of nations will agree on how you should execute such laws. I can tell you now that we most certainly adhere to a different standard of international practice than most unenlightened nations.

- Lord Jehvah, Representative of Lord Atum to the United Nations

Enlighten me. How precisely do you propose for the United Nations to find an impartial set of laws to work with? General principles of international law vary based upon time and place, and no diverse group of nations will agree on how you should execute such laws. I can tell you now that we most certainly adhere to a different standard of international practice than most unenlightened nations.

- Lord Jehvah, Representative of Lord Atum to the United Nations

International laws are the UN passed resolutions, in NS

International laws are the UN passed resolutions, in NS

OOC: So why not just say "UN resolutions" instead so it is actually clear?

And I think the ninety three thousand non UN member states would disagree with you on that matter.

Because:

1) It is a strong limit: they could be have other international laws that not will not be UN Resolution (like RL Geneva conventions and similar)

2) I did't ever consider it :p

Finally, the proposal is now a Resolution at vote! :cool:

Voting ends on Mon Mar 21 2005

Official Statement from the Democratic Republic of Free on Principle, through it's Ambassador to the Dominion of Skretih:

"Dear Sirs,

I am happy to state that the government of the Democratic Republic of Free on Principle has elected to vote in favor of the "International Court of Justice" regulation. The act was decide upon in a vote, where the results were 31-64 in favor of this resolution. We find this resolution to be sensible, and the Minister of Foreign Relations was quoted as to having called it "The biggest step towards worldwide security ever performed".

Sincerely,
Hagbart Pedersen,
Minister of United Nations Affairs,
Ambassador to the Dominion of Skretih."

Sent from the Embassy of FoP in Skretih's capitol of Hizbar. Redelegated by the Central Communications Surveillance Bureau of Skretih to the United Nations headquarters.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/modedit.jpg from Submitted: International Court of Justice.

Congratulations on reaching the voting floor. A fine example of persistence in support of a well-thought-out proposal.

You have the support of Cobdenia on this issue, Freedonia.

HE Mr Arthur Featherstonehaigh-Michelwhaite-Cholmondsey-Cholmondsey-Smythe
Cobdenian Ambassador to the UN

If I am not mistaken, an International court of Justice exsists in real-life. A real-life reference, in breach of game rules, correct?

If you want to be technical, a UN exists in real life too.

*Felix Jethoscopes, Shiree Herald to the UN - speaking from the UNHQ to any members of the press he can grab by the cuff*

"This proposal is the most unnecessary piece of bureaucratic clique-ism I've ever had the misfortune to place Watfordshire's vote against. It intimates an that a completely unrepresentative 'old boy's club' shall be deciding IN SECRET! the fate of nations as if they were singular criminals in the dock.

It is an unprecedented piece of insidious puffery which should be voted down by any UN Delegates and memberstates who value the very liberties that the UN holds dear"

Essentially, the problem is that a panel representing a very small proportion of UN members will be able to arbitrate on the correct interpretation of virtually all UN resolutions, as well as almost any other international treaty or agreement that hasn't explicitly appointed a judicial authority. It also talks, rather worryingly, about enforcing 'international custom', which seems to me to be things for which no laws exist at all and which nobody has any right to arbitrate upon.

Furthermore, they'd do this in secret, which is totally unnecessary; secret deliberations are all very well in courts dealing with people, but nations don't have a right to privacy or anything else that might make anything but transparency a good idea. As well as being rather antidemocratic, it makes the UN look bad (how many spurious accusations does it get daily of being a socialist / anti-dictator / etc. cabal?)

This is pretty indicative of it being a naive attempt to structure international law hearings in precisely the same way as criminal law cases. Nations aren't people, and treating them as if they were just like extra-big people won't work. The cutoff point for new evidence, for instance - what the hell?

Lastly, their decision will be final; no appeals, nothing. This is just another layer of autocracy on top of the already fairly autocratic structure of the UN. The UN passes some excellent legislation, and some incredibly stupid legislation; this is acceptable within a limit because there's usually some wriggle-room to defuse the more problematic parts of the poorly-considered resolutions. Finding creative RP solutions to appalling legislation is part of the fun of the game. This document would completely obliviate said wriggle-room.

I'm not opposed to a UN judicial body in principle, particularly if repeals continue to weed out the more blundering past resolutions, but secret deliberation and an excessively wide remit are too damaging.

Thanks to all for compliments, I hope that the establishment of this Court could be a great advance in the international cooperations and stenght the importance of International right.

@Watfordshire: read the resolution:

§9-Judgement
1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.
2.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based,it shall contain the names of the judges andshall be read in open court.

The judges make deliberation secret, but the judgement and its reason are public. It's the normal way of each tribunal.

About the possible autocracy of the ICJ, it shall work like a Supreme Court, then it's obvious that the judgement shall be without appeal: the ICJ is the last layer of Law. And its power is derived by the General Assembly, that will decide (I hope) that this statute is ok.

This act is a direct attack against the individual rights of individual nations! The nation should decide wether the person at trial should be put on trial no U.N. law has the right to pick people from a nation and without the concent of the nation put them on trial for laws that may be intirly dirent than the nation of the person on trial by an international court! No Andronese citizen should ever be put on trial by another court other than the Andrionese High Court.

This piece of legislature also has a high probability of going corrupt because of the nature of large beuacracies, I mean not to repeat arguments that have already been put forth but, this is a piece of beuracratic mayham. We in Andrionan do not agree with any beuracracies and are a great supporter of small government there for our U.N. delegate has been ordered to vote against this utterly unnessasary pice of legaslature and we hope other librety loving nations will aid us in the fight against "big brother" governments which this is akin to.

I cannot get over the fact that there is no right to appeal. That is rediculously stupid, don't you think?

With no place for appeal, secret deliberations, outrageous salaries, and such a broad writ as to make national paranoia a sound psychological state, I don't see how anyone can sanction this resolution.

Moreover, it seems pointless as the court seems to have the ability to issue ruling, but there is no enforcement teeth.

Is this anything other than a way for the power hungry and sanctimonius to feel self-congratulatory??

New Drakh

While there may be some valid points regarding secrecy of decisions, etc., I don't think that the salary is an issue. Twice the average going rate for a judge in member countries? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm going to vote against this issue as well... for most of the reasons already listed. I could agree to an international court, but not the way it is currently laid out. I would implore everyone to vote against this resolution, and possibly re-draft a different version in the future. It does not respect nation sovereignty.

When are you liberals going to get it? The UN is not the US Federal government, and trying to model it as such is a bad idea. Now do not construe this as saying that the USA government is bad. It isn't. (As an American it is now my duty to declare that we are the greatest nation on earth) American rocks! lol. The point is that we are not 50 states under one government. The UN is a part of us, we are not a part of the UN. The UN is made up of sovereign nations who band together to make the UN what it is. The UN is a conglomerate of nations. The UN is NOT a Governing body over those nations which have membership to it. Just because game mechanics state that all nations must abide my passed resolutions doesn't mean that the UN is GOD and that all must bow down before it. The main principle of the UN is that we all come together voluntarily, and in good faith follow all resolutions. This latest trend in the UN about making the UN a governing body is troubling. The UN was not, nor has it ever been intended to be a governing body over the nations which voluntarily participate in it. I.E. the UNWODC. Because of that resolution all nations have given up authority of their organ donation code of ethics and practices. The UNWODC gives the UN governing authority over the Nations. Now what happens if this IC (International Court) gets passed. Those who don't follow the Mandates of the UNWODC can not be brought before the UN to be punished. This is a dangerous and slippery road, one that should not be traveled. BTW, this is exactly why the United States of America is not apart of the International Court in real life. That gives the authority of a few people to tell and entire nation how to conduct itself.
Also Judges have to run for office. BAD idea! Now those judges are susceptible to campaigning, and taking contributions. Can Anyone smell special interest. How about a "Bought " court. BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. This is dangerous. People will abuse the IC of its passed. Judges will be bought in exchange for a particular verdict. And the fact that these get special treatment above all other people is ridiculous. Judges are not Royalty, they are people. They bleed just the same as you and me. To make them immune to international law is a mistake. "The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. " What happens when one of these judges breaks the law. As in running a red light, or Killing another person. Now they become Immune to prosecution. once again BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD!

I implore that anyone who seriously considers voting for this resolution take a step back and look at what this leads to.

Please Consider this and do not vote for this resolution!

Respectfully, DoU

That gives the authority of a few people to tell and entire nation how to conduct itself.

Actually the judges can use only international laws, that are resolutions approved by the General Assembly. This not changes anything from the precedent situation. If you had liked to approve the past resolutions, ICJ does not change the situation. If you don't like it, simply resign from UN; but this action should be made more time ago.


To make them immune to international law is a mistake. "The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. "


If judges are not free by the hammer of possible arrest on countries that, strange, are part of a process, how could be a process fair?

We, as the government of the nation of Chenini, are very concerned about the lack of a right to Appeal, though we are in favour of the concept of an international court and recognise Human Rights to be THE key building block of any country or world we also feel that to deny the right to appeal is a grave omission, and as such will not be voting in favour of this resolution.

With regard to the concern for the right of appeal.. for an appeal to be sensible there would need to be a higher court to overturn the ruling of the lower court. There is no such court in existence, and have trouble imagining one for something that's called the International Court of Justice.. maybe 'The Court above the International Court of Justice'? I think not. The buck's got to stop somewhere. That is perfectly normal practice in judicial hierarchies - there comes a point when someone's decision needs to be final, or a decision will never be made.

As for appealing to a lower, national, or the same court.. Appealing to a lower court is illogical for the reason given above. Appealing to a national court would make little sense in international matters - it would be patently unfair if a losing party were to be able to choose their own national court, or another court of their choosing, against the will of the other party. Appealing to the same court - this is again illogical. A court doesn't make a decision because it thinks it might be wrong and therefore allow a appeal to itself, against its own decision!

This resolution violates every legal ethic code found today, and it will cause more problems then it will correct.

The global court overrides national, and state jurisdiction for each nation included in the UN, and simply telling a nation to leave if they do not like it is childish and frighteningly reminiscent of Vietnam era slander and lapel. How does this Global court rule over nations that are not part of the UN, or actions against a UN nation by a non-UN nation state? Who is the policing body for the Global court, and how are you to rationalize now that the legal beliefs and statutes are not in contradiction to nations represented in the UN. Elected global judges cannot possible take all of those issues into consideration and make a fare and honest ruling to stay neutral and detached for the global community and any individual nations that may be involved.

Jurisdiction should be left up to the individual Nations that are involved in any "said" criminal act, and we should use the UN to promote better interaction between nations to ensure criminal conduct is addressed on that National and State level, not overriding them with the Supreme-Supreme-Supreme court with no enforcement agency. And worst of all, trial and circuit courts in our Nation and others like try cases concerning infringements upon civil and criminal natures, the supreme court rules over issues of the law, and ensuring that lower courts do not infringe on promised constitutional rights to all citizens. Who is to watch over this global court, who is to ensure they are not infringing upon the provided rights of all nations included, as they are vast and complex. Nay, Global Court I say is wrong direction my friends.

How absurd. No one is above the law! What makes it fair is that Judges have to live and rule by the same law as every one else.


If judges are not free by the hammer of possible arrest on countries that, strange, are part of a process, how could be a process fair?

First of all once again What happens when one of these judges breaks the law. Don't skirt the issue by using generic paranoia of the rule law, or for law enforcement more specifically. You would break the law to enforce it. What happens when one of those judges takes a bribe? Its been know to happen. Ask the City of Chicago how that works. You seriously mean to tell me that when one of these judges takes a bribe the are exempt from any punishment from the legal system. How insulting, How inherently absurd! "oh a bribes not so bad" what happens when a judges rapes some one? you mean to tell me that they must be free from the hammer of possible arrest, of taking bribes and or any other unscrupulous activities they may take. Once again they are judges, not God! What happens when a judges abuses his/her power (for you PC people out there) and then legislates from the bench. With no appeals, nothing happens. Where's the checks and balances?


If you don't like it, simply resign from UN; but this action should be made more time ago.
There's a reason this hasn't passed before. Do you know why? Simple It's a bad Idea. As far as your like it or leave it attitude let me quote Justice Scalia "My job here is to tell you liberals to go take a walk." I am not leaving the UN just because a bad proposal has me all fired up. Really do think its that easy. If you think this is such a good idea prove to me why it is and why I should change my vote. Not just tell me to buzz off. Rhetoric doesn't count, give me legitimist reasons why.

Sincerely, DoU

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing in the resolution to indicate that one is forced to bring a matter before the ICJ, should it pass. Further, enforcement of the judgment of the ICJ is ultimately a matter of the General Assembly, so I'm pretty sure that the justices won't go completely off the deep end in terms of a verdict, and if they do (for example, 99% of UN members think their judgment was idiotic), the Assembly can decline to enforce the judgment, or parts of it. The goal, as Krioval sees it, is to eliminate disputes over borders or diplomatic agreements that require a neutral party to evaluate and decide. The ICJ could very easily perform this function and thus avert costly and deadly wars.

In the interests of saving time, money, and lives, Krioval votes in favor of this resolution and urges other nations to do the same.

Lord Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing in the resolution to indicate that one is forced to bring a matter before the ICJ, should it pass. Further, enforcement of the judgment of the ICJ is ultimately a matter of the General Assembly, so I'm pretty sure that the justices won't go completely off the deep end in terms of a verdict, and if they do (for example, 99% of UN members think their judgment was idiotic), the Assembly can decline to enforce the judgment, or parts of it. The goal, as Krioval sees it, is to eliminate disputes over borders or diplomatic agreements that require a neutral party to evaluate and decide. The ICJ could very easily perform this function and thus avert costly and deadly wars.

In the interests of saving time, money, and lives, Krioval votes in favor of this resolution and urges other nations to do the same.

Lord Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

I have to say, exactly how is this going to save time and money? Any court of law, by its very nature, is slow and beureucratic. Legal procedings can be both extremely time-consuming and costly.

Second, you got the issue of paying inflated salaries for the fat-cats who will work for this court. Just how appealing does the prospect of having to pay these boys' salaries from your very tax payers money sound? Money that could be spent on your national education, health and indeed, legal systems.

>The official languages shall be French

No way, this alone is enogh reason to vote against it!
If this Resolutions comes through, I'm out of the UN.

Tod und ewiger Hass für Frankreich!

The Nation of Plutophobia issues this telegram, to all members of the U.N.
http://fapfap.org/telegram2.jpg

#1. This resolution is incorrect. U.N. resolutions are not "international law." International law would apply to all nations, not just U.N. members. So, the idea that it's "International Law", is ridiculous. No such thing exists.

#2. This resolution is redundant. Someone said that "International Law" means U.N. Resolutions. Well, if it's job is to enforce that people follow all U.N. resolutions, then that's pointless, because it is already being done. It is a waste of time and resources.

#3. This resolution can and WILL lead to corruption. When you say all states are subject to "International Law", then in the future, you could impose even harsher resolutions than what has already been done. The U.N. may pass "International Laws" which benefit the majority of nations, while hurting others. This utilitarian approach while creating a Big Brother is ridiculous.

#4. No foreign power has the right to enforce its laws on another sovereign nation. If you are going to enforce "International Law" on U.N. members, then we had all may as well abolish all of our governments, because truly, we don't control them anymore. You do.

The link to your telegram is dead.

The link to your telegram is dead.
(Fixed it. It works now)

There is a problem with this proposal that I am curious about. Why would there be a stipulation as to the number of members allowed form one state? This appears as though it ought to read "no to of whom may be from one region."

Add to that the 9 year terms of the judiciary and this becomes absurd. Where did the idea of a 9 year term come from: it is neither a usefully democratic term of office, nor does it avoid some of the more problemtatic aspects of an elected judiciary.

Back to the drawing boards with this says I.

I have to say, exactly how is this going to save time and money? Any court of law, by its very nature, is slow and beureucratic. Legal procedings can be both extremely time-consuming and costly.

Second, you got the issue of paying inflated salaries for the fat-cats who will work for this court. Just how appealing does the prospect of having to pay these boys' salaries from your very tax payers money sound? Money that could be spent on your national education, health and indeed, legal systems.

First of all, Krioval's GDP is approximately $(US) 14 trillion (OOC: adjusted due to FT economy). The cost of paying fifteen judges means we make one fewer fighter starship a year. Second, wars are more expensive than court proceedings, especially when reconstruction costs are factored in. The ICJ would likely only be adjudicating cases in which the parties involved had exhausted every other sound method of resolving the crisis (other than outright hostilities). Wars also take a while to conduct, and reconstruction is time-consuming. Thus, Krioval believes that the ICJ is a solid alternative to petty wars over such things as fishing rights in a given river.

As far as Krioval's taxes are concerned, they hover around forty percent, rising and falling as Parliament and the Commander see fit. The chance to improve the international climate so as to open up further cultural and trade opportunities is worth a slight upward trend in taxes.

No foreign power has the right to enforce its laws on another sovereign nation. If you are going to enforce "International Law" on U.N. members, then we had all may as well abolish all of our governments, because truly, we don't control them anymore. You do.

International law is alread enforced on UN members - by the UN! Yet our governments are somehow all sovereign despite our membership. The ICJ is merely an arm of enforcement. Previously irreconcilable differences between member states now have a possibility of resolution through the Court. That is all this resolution does; it provides a mechanism by which conflict can be averted.

... The UN is not the US Federal government, and trying to model it as such is a bad idea.Actually, I would say the opposite: modelling it after the government of the mythical "United States of America", that wonderous invention of Hillywood, is exactly what we ought to do.

It's too bad people don't understand how said government works...

The point is that we are not 50 states under one government. The UN is a part of us, we are not a part of the UN.Well, technically, so is the Federal Government of the United States of America.

The UN is made up of sovereign nations who band together to make the UN what it is. The UN is a conglomerate of nations. The UN is NOT a Governing body over those nations which have membership to it.As someone once said, "Ditto, ditto, ditto". And hopefully, no one will pull my membership in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy for saying so.

IOW, if I said: "The U.S. is made up of sovereign states who band together to make the U.S. what it is. The U.S. is a conglomerate of states. The U.S. is NOT a Governing body over those states which have membership in it" (sic), I would be speaking the absolute truth.

The Federal Government of the United States of America can not simply overrule its member States any time it pleases. The system of separated and articulated powers spelled out by Mr. Madison gives the States authority over all acts within their jurisdiction - a jurisdiction that is as much logical as geographical.

Remember the movie "Mississippi Burning?" Ever wonder why the FBI couldn't just arrest the KKK members in question for murder? Answer: the Federal government has no jurisdiction over murder. It's a State crime. If Mississippi wouldn't charge, no one else could. This is called "States' Rights."

Ditto for the infamous "double-nickels" speed limit laws of the 70's. The Feds couldn't say, "Your speed limit has to be 55". All they could do was threaten to cut off Federal funds to States that defied them.

Just because game mechanics state that all nations must abide my passed resolutions doesn't mean that the UN is GOD and that all must bow down before it. The main principle of the UN is that we all come together voluntarily, and in good faith follow all resolutions.As with the United States, although that last statement isn't quite correct. We are more like what the U.S. would be if secession were allowed and anyone could join, with the additional wrinkle that instead of passing laws, the General Assembly passes what some folks call "mandates." Otherwise, it's the same.

Now Ujio, don't think I disagree with you: on the contrary, I'm on your side. You say that the problem is that people think the U.N. is the U.S.A. I think the problem is that, in addition, they've forgotten (or never knew) how the U.S.A. was meant to work.

This latest trend in the UN about making the UN a governing body is troubling. The UN was not, nor has it ever been intended to be a governing body over the nations which voluntarily participate in it.Hear, hear! The idea behind the United Nations is exactly the same as that behind the United States: create an entity that its answerable to the Membership (the States, in the Federal example), and addresses those issues (and only those issues) that the States can not address individually.

So, for instance, if we need rules for the conduct of trade or currency arbitrage, that is where the U.N. fits in. Money laundering? Climate change? Disaster relief and disease control? These are all international issues, so they belong here at the U.N.

But abortion rights?!? Gay marraige?!? Freedom to proselytize? Education? Health care? These are national issues, and should be resolved by the Members on their own.

Only if a problem rises to the level where nations must cooperate to deal with it, should that issue come before the U.N. My nation - Allemande - will introduce a resolution to eradicate smallpox. This can not be done by one country, so it is a proper task for the world community to undertake in concert. Likewise, the diplomatic immunity proposal is also worthy of this body's consideration.

But most of what we are passing these days would be better left to the Members.

Over the last few years, we have watched Allemande's tax rate climb from 38% to 51%. Almost every single dime of that increase is due to U.N. mandates. In the meantime, there are social issues our Parliament doesn't dare move on - such as graffitti and beach front cleanup - because we are rightly afraid of sending our economy into a nose-dive. Why should people in other countries decide that an online library is more important than clean beaches?!? Shouldn't that call be ours instead?

I believe that it should.

In the case of this court, I question its need. Each Member nation is charged with the task of applying NSUN resolutions to its law books in order to achieve compliance. Thus, I must ask: is there evidence that this is not happening? No, there is not.

So what will this court do? Why, it will resolve matters between states - and states alone, because individuals have and can have no standing before it.

What sort of matters? Broken treaties, mostly. Maybe cases where the parties agree to have the matter arbitrated.

But if this is the case, why can't the parties simply agree to binding arbitration? It would be cheaper for everyone, and there would be no question of whether such arbitrators - picked individually for each dispute - would be fair. There would also be no standing judiciary to corrupt.

Besides, what power will this "court" have that arbitrators don't have? If a Member elects to defy the court, what of it? The NSUN has never had the ability to punish a Member nation, and never will.

I agree with the Ambassador from Ujio: this is a very bad idea, precisely because the U.N. should be like the U.S. and its Members treated like States, and consequently the proper course for this body should be one of prudent, cautious Federalism.

I will add one more thing: I call on members who feel as I do to join me in repealing every U.N. resolution that does not meet the Federalist test of being a necessary piece of international regulation. Let's make being a member of the U.N. affordable again.

I thank you for your time.

Cabinia has no interest in being judged by the fifteen people who pandered to the wealthiest corporations, and best eviscerated their contemporaries through lies and misrepresentations, and were able to brainwash the most gullible members of the most popular idiotic philosophy, in order to take the post. The faults of the democratic process are widely recognized, and those who see them yet persist with it anyway (in accordance with Churchill's philosophy: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."), are sensible enough to build a judiciary which is set apart from it.

Besides, the UN is already a clear tyranny of the majority, and this would only make it worse.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

The Commonwealth of Plutophobia has reviewed the resolution and others' comments, and henceforth revises its list of problems with the resolution.

The problems with this resolution are as follows:
#1. This resolution is not concise enough. U.N. resolutions are not "international law." International law would apply to all nations, not just U.N. members. So, the idea that it's enforcing "international law", is ridiculous. No such thing exists.

#2. This resolution is redundant. The author said that "international law" means U.N. Resolutions. Well, if it's job is to enforce that people follow all U.N. resolutions, then that's pointless, because it is already being done. It is a waste of time and resources.

#3. The U.N. is imposing LAW on states, rather than just moderate resolutions. When you say all states are subject to "international law", then in the future, you could impose even harsher resolutions than what has already been done. The U.N. may pass "International Laws" which benefit the majority of nations, while hurting others. This utilitarian approach while creating a Big Brother is ridiculous. No foreign power has the right to enforce its laws on another sovereign nation. Yes, the U.N. enforces "U.N. resolutions", but "International law" is (or could at least be interpreted as being) DIFFERENT from "U.N. resolutions." It's not concise, and it could open pandora's box, legally.

#4. An entire region could take control of the court. The resolution states that no more than two members may be of the same state. However, this is not limiting enough. Technically, an entire region could take control of this court. Although they're separate states, unified regions could exploit this part of the law, to assume absolute power over the court.

#5. Limitless diplomatic immunities are insane and totally unnecessary. These judges are allowed diplomatic immunities, with no limitations, whatsoever. A judge could walk into a foreign country and start killing people, and legally, they could not do anything until the U.N. had passed another resolution, to stop it. Absolutely ridiculous. There need to be limitations on diplomatic immunity, or actually, just get rid of it completely. These judges can meet in a country which is fairly neutral and peaceful, with no need for diplomatic immunity to protect them.

#6. The courts are allowed to refuse further evidence. This could allow them to pick-and-choose the evidence they want. If they have the evidence which supports the decision they want, they can dismiss the rest of the evidence, even if it's completely relevant.

#7. There's no appeals! If there is no chance for appeal, then there is no possibility of safeguarding against unlawful judgements or corruption, all of which would definitely be possible, as described above.

Even if this resolution passes, Plutophobia and its neighbors will immediately push for this resolution to be repealed or revised.

Heads of State and Government,

My government having sought legal advise from our Attorney General has advised that we can only affirm the resolution in the negative until such time as the following issues are addressed:

1. We find the selection process for judicial appointments too broad as to foster any confidence in the court.

2. We share the concerns raised The Constitutional Monarchy of Shmaw in finding the judicial length of tenure (9 years) excessive.

3. We share the doubts raised by Nusku Capleton, Special Liason to the UN, Rehochipe, concerning the term 'international custom'. This clearly gives rise to the possibility of frivolous and/or vexatious proceedings being initiated by a member state.

4. We find that Article 9 lacks sufficient legal clarity concerning what an actual 'judgement' of the court is - i.e. it fails to specify what qualifies as an 'judgement' of the court - is it a majority or unanimous opinion, what happens in the event of an equality of votes within the court?

To give Article 9 its present interpretation, we believe that an opinion delivered by any justices of the court could be considered a 'judgement'.

Furthermore we wish to give notice to the promoter, that if this resolution is passed and a court so constituted, we will have no other option but to initiate proceedings under Article 4 (1) (b) to address the above issues.

My government wishes to state however, that we laud the Republic of Freedonia for bringing such a resolution to the UN despite our clear misgivings and we favour in principle an International Court of Justice but clearly not under the terms under which its proposed.

Tristan du Nord
Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary of Grand Trianon to the UN

Ok, here is your correction, the ICJ is not there to solve disputes in matters of as from the mouth of the author itself.
Actually the judges can use only international laws, that are resolutions approved by the General Assembly. This not changes anything from the precedent situation.
This resolution does not address war, disputes over borders or diplomatic (I assume) disagreements. Those are all tasks for a moderator not the court. The resolution clearly omits the previously suggested activities cause the author know that those activities do not require the action of a court. Stop molesting resolutions so that they "feel good" to vote on. Those are clearly not the goals of this resolution and it Fraudulent to suggest so.


The goal, as Krovial sees it, is to eliminate disputes over borders or diplomatic agreements that require a neutral party to evaluate and decide. The ICJ could very easily perform this function and thus avert costly and deadly wars.

Also this confuses me that you would make this argument.
Further, enforcement of the judgment of the ICJ is ultimately a matter of the General Assembly, so I'm pretty sure that the justices won't go completely off the deep end in terms of a verdict, and if they do (for example, 99% of UN members think their judgment was idiotic), the Assembly can decline to enforce the judgment, or parts of it.
Last time I checked final judgment as dictated in the resolution by the judges. No where in the proposal does it stat that the GA (general assembly) can simply ignore the court. The proposal clearly states that what the ICJ decides goes. Once again how you presume to make up content that's not in the proposal? Once again Stop making up content that does not exist, just so you can make an argument about content that's not in the proposal to make it feel good :fluffle: to support the bastardization of the UN by making it a ruling body. AS stated befor the UN is not a governing body of the Nations within it. The nations with in the UN are the governing body of the UN.

Respectfully DoU

This resolution is not concise enough. U.N. resolutions are not "international law." International law would apply to all nations, not just U.N. members. So, the idea that it's enforcing "international law", is ridiculous. No such thing exists.

I find this argument self-contradictory. If the resolution is not concise enough, yet doesn't appear to explain enough, I don't see how one would solve the problem. In fact, I think it would be difficult to identify which was the problem.

This resolution is redundant. The author said that "international law" means U.N. Resolutions. Well, if it's job is to enforce that people follow all U.N. resolutions, then that's pointless, because it is already being done. It is a waste of time and resources.

If you read the "non-concise" parts a bit more carefully, the ICJ would also be able to interpret treaties and "international obligations" between UN member states, not just UN resolutions. So it is not redundant because of that feature. Also, if a UN member fails to abide a UN resolution, harming another state in the process, the ICJ can intervene in those situations.

The U.N. is imposing LAW on states, rather than just moderate resolutions.

That's its job. That is what the NSUN was designed to do. While I'll grant that some people aren't going to like some resolutions, if the mechanism itself is abhorrent to you, you might want to reconsider membership.

The U.N. may pass "International Laws" which benefit the majority of nations, while hurting others.

One could argue that such things have already been done, in fact. The solutions, of course, are either to campaign against such things or to leave. Legalized prostitution, for example, is something Krioval has absolutely no problems dealing with. Other nations, however, chafe at that resolution.

An entire region could take control of the court. The resolution states that no more than two members may be of the same state. However, this is not limiting enough. Technically, an entire region could take control of this court. Although they're separate states, unified regions could exploit this part of the law, to assume absolute power over the court.

In theory, yes. However, I would presume that the General Assembly, in electing judges to the ICJ, should it pass, would not pick members exclusively from one region. Thus, I am reasonable unconcerned with that possibility, though I concede that if this resolution fails, a new draft should include restrictions on regional membership.

Limitless diplomatic immunities are insane and totally unnecessary. These judges are allowed diplomatic immunities, with no limitations, whatsoever.

Nowhere in the resolution does it say that diplomatic immunity is to be considered "limitless". In fact, I find the following comments:

A judge could walk into a foreign country and start killing people, and legally, they could not do anything until the U.N. had passed another resolution, to stop it.

to be:

Absolutely ridiculous.

Besides, there is a proposal on the list that delineates what is and is not diplomatic immunity. Nowhere does it indicate that killing people is protected. Thus, it is an absurdity to assume that the ICJ resolution allows it, either by implication or direct statement.

The courts are allowed to refuse further evidence. This could allow them to pick-and-choose the evidence they want. If they have the evidence which supports the decision they want, they can dismiss the rest of the evidence, even if it's completely relevant.

Nearly all courts have some degree of latitude in determining which evidence is admissible or not. Since the proceedings are open to the public, I have strong doubts that a one-sided hearing is going to be tolerated by the General Assembly, which does have a certain degree of power over the ICJ, should it be established. Ultimately, the only part of the process that is under seal is the deliberation, and this is common in most, if not all, jury trials as well.

There's no appeals! If there is no chance for appeal, then there is no possibility of safeguarding against unlawful judgements or corruption, all of which would definitely be possible, as described above.

To where would one appeal an ICJ decision? This is simply a statement of the ICJ's finality and supremacy - there are no courts above the ICJ, if it is established. If there were such a court, then its judgments would be final and without appeal. It all has to stop somewhere.

This resolution does not address war, disputes over borders or diplomatic (I assume) disagreements. Those are all tasks for a moderator not the court. The resolution clearly omits the previously suggested activities cause the author know that those activities do not require the action of a court. Stop molesting resolutions so that they "feel good" to vote on. Those are clearly not the goals of this resolution and it Fraudulent to suggest so.

The author's intent, whatever it is, is irrelevant in the end. What becomes relevant are two things:

1. The text of the resolution, and
2. How the UN functions in general.

The text of the resolution says that international treaties fall under the ICJ's jurisdiction (II, 4, 1a). Also, "international obligations" can be considered (II, 4, 1c). And I respectfully ask that the delegate from The Demons of Ujio not refer to Krioval's clarifications, directly from the resolution's text, as "molesting resolutions". That is simply uncalled for.

No where in the proposal does it stat that the GA (general assembly) can simply ignore the court. The proposal clearly states that what the ICJ decides goes.

You are correct in that it doesn't specifically allow this in the resolution. However, since the court derives its power (like all other UN committees/bodies) from the GA, it stands to reason that if a (RPed) verdict were considered unusually harsh by sufficient member nations (also RPed), a "shadow resolution" (RPed - not an actual proposal) could be passed effectively voiding the (RPed) verdict. Since this would be extraordinarily difficult to achieve, especially if both nations involved in the dispute have agreed beforehand to take it to the ICJ, I don't spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about it.

AS stated befor the UN is not a governing body of the Nations within it. The nations with in the UN are the governing body of the UN.

No, it is in fact, both. Whether by design or over time, the UN can and does routinely impose upon nations laws that they might otherwise not choose to pass. One nation, one vote, unless one is fortunate enough to be a Regional Delegate.

---Offical Statement---

From Office of The Grand Reducis,

In light of considering the said resolution and of the arguments put forth for and against, the Great Reduccial Empire of Clarksingtonland feels still undecided at the moment. The Reduccial Empire feels that the resolution is a wise idea, but the fact that there is no right to an appeal is worrysome. Also, The Reduccial Empire is worried about the possible disrespect for individual nations customs and rights after they are under the juristiction of a single Court.

The Reduccial Empire shall review this resolution and shall come to a concenses based on a vote with in the Magistracoetus (PArliment) within a few days.

Grand Reducis Timothius Clarkus, Offical Foregin Represantitive of the People of Clarksingtonland

--Statement from the Prime Minister of The United States of Romanus Britannus--

"The Government of The United States of Romanus Britannus believes that this resolution is the proper foundation to be laid for any and all movement towards justice being ensured within the United Nations. We fully endorse this resolution and hope that fellow democratic governments will join in with their approval.

Official Statement from The Constitutional Monarchy of Saint Jeanvrin

The people of Saint Jeanvrin are firm believers in the just cause of International Law. However, we cannot support this resolution as it currently stands. Specifically, there are two articles within this proposal that are of concern to us.

First, under the Organization and Composition article, the resolution reads that “the Court shall consist of 15 members, no 2 of whom may be from the same state”. We believe that members should be limited by region, not state. With members only being limited by state, it is highly probable that one or two regions, even small regions, could obtain majority control of this World Court. We believe that is too dangerous a risk to take. Representation should come from all cultural groups across the diaspora, and this current proposal does not allow for widespread representation.

Our second concern is in regards to the judgment process. The resolution currently reads “the judgment is final and without appeal”. Although Saint Jeanvrin recognizes the need to establish a court in which judgments are final, every witness should still have a right to an appeal. Every case has its own mitigating circumstances, and therefore allowing the right to an appeal should be extended.

Furthermore, we also could not help but notice the argument of “If you don't like it, simply resign from UN”. We believe that all nations interested in passing a resolution for an International Court should be open to all criticisms so as to make the resolution as just and amiable for as many countries as possible.

I urge my fellow Canadians, and all nations not to support this flawed piece of legislation.

Sincerely,



King Octave IV, Head of State
The Constitutional Monarchy of Saint Jeanvrin
"A country can be judged by the quality of its proverbs"

:headbang:

To where would one appeal an ICJ decision? This is simply a statement of the ICJ's finality and supremacy - there are no courts above the ICJ, if it is established. If there were such a court, then its judgments would be final and without appeal. It all has to stop somewhere.[/QUOTE]

You're absolutely 100% correct that the buck must stop..somewhere. But not in an international body of UN apointed judges, judges I have to add have no one keeping tabs on the civil and political freedoms they might be infringing. I said it all before, you must have missed the post. It is not the responsability of the UN to become the work circuit court of Justice, for UN nations at least. This resolution does not describe how actions will be handled with non-UN nations mixed with UN nations, dual standards; thats the ticket.

Global court overrides judicial, constitutional and civil responsabilities and rights of all nation's citizens, and removes all power from national governments and judicial groups from matters the UN feels it needs to handle. These resolutions are blowing the UN far out of control and scope, I hope that this is realized, why dont we just turn all National Gov'ts into States removing all national powers and transition the UN to the new World Government so everyone can know happiness, no one will no pain, or suffering, and there will never be another border dispute or infraction again. More is not always better my friends.

Originally Posted by Lord Atum

OOC: So why not just say "UN resolutions" instead so it is actually clear?

And I think the ninety three thousand non UN member states would disagree with you on that matter.

I think that ninety tree thousand non UN members:
a) arn't affected
b) probably dont care
c) dont have a say seeing as they are not part of the body who would agree to (or disagree) and uphold it


also, it is international law as long as more then two nations agree to it... international means loosly more then one nation... therefor if two nations agree to a law together, it is an INTERNATIONAL law

We do not need a world-wide court. I, personally do not want someone from some large comercial state across the globe telling me how to rule my people. I think that it is the job of the countries to solve their disputes. If there is an international issue, the countries involved should be able to work things out without the ideals of someone across the globe telling them what to do. Countries have their own laws for a reason, so they can handle things when they happen.

I don't see the point in centralizing the U.N. on the boundaries of international law. As it is, each U.N. nation has to be compliant with every U.N. resolution that passed and enforcement does not need to be considered. So, before I even begin to look closely at its flaws, I'd say this resolution is pointless and wasteful.

That being said, let's go over it, line by agonizing line. This is one resolution that cannot be approved on ambiguous concepts.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Republic of Freedonia

Description: §1-Preamble
The International Court of Justice,established as the principal judicial organ of the UN,shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.

Statute generally refers to a single law, passed by a legislative body. I'm going to have to speculate that it's speaking of the current U.N. resolutions - but the entire concept has already been made ambiguous by poor wording, and an ambiguous resolution can shift from dangerous to worthless in about one thousandth of a second. The intent of the author is not as important as the actual phrasing and how it can be interpreted, as has been mentioned before.

Also, there's the question of whether "the present Statute" refers to both laws passed before this resolution and laws passed after the resolution.


I-ORGANIZATION
§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.

High moral character is a prerequisite? What does morality have to do with law? If a person makes his decision based upon his morals (in particular, I worry about religious morals) as opposed to what our laws say he should make his decision upon, then there's a problem.

Also, who elects them and how? Do the people do it? The regions? The NationStates? Freedonia?


2.The Court shall consist of 15 members,no 2 of whom may be from the same state.

This does, of course, allow for a single large region to take over the court. Since all of the judges are elected at the same time, it also allows for a single court to unbalance itself via one bad election year. 15 is far too few to take in the cultural differences of 37,000 nations, and FAR too few to handle the cases that would be presented. A single judicial body cannot handle this, and therefore it's best to leave it be.

3.The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Immunity: An exemption that a person (individual or corporate) enjoys from the normal operation of the law such as a legal duty or liability, either criminal or civil. For example, diplomats enjoy "diplomatic immunity" which means that they cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed during their tenure as diplomat. (Princeton Wordnet)
So... Our judges cannot be affected by the law? That will teach them to respect it.
Krioval, immunity is absolute unless specified otherwise. That's just how the word is used. We don't really have Joker style diplomats who use it for crime in real life, but NationStates is a nuttier place than real life. Take it from the lunatic firebreathing chicken we call "leader".

4.The Court shall elect its President,Vice-President and Registrar for 3 years;they may be re-elected.

I can only assume that they're electing from the 9. But what do these people DO?

5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary.

Open for abuse. Say I build an anarchistic or dictatorial society, admit it to the U.N. There is no law system, only U.N. laws that must be obeyed. So, I have no judges. Mebbe one judge. Heck, I'll be the grand judge. So, I'll set my salary (and therefore my national judge salary) to, oh, say, 7 trillion ethereal doubloons a week. That bumps up the average a bit, doesn't it?

And where do we pay for this?

§3-Mandate

1.The members shall be elected for 9 years and may be re-elected.

Pointless and far too long. If these people are already competent, they should have very short terms - 1-5 years. Alternating terms should also be in effect so you don't start a new court every nine years.

2.The members shall continue to discharge their duties until their places have been filled.Though replaced,they shall finish any cases which they may have begun.

So, a spiteful fired judge still gets one last potshot? Wait, can we even fire judges?

3.No member may exercise any political or administrative function,or engage in any other occupation of a professional nature.

I'm fine with this. An actual restriction on judicial power! Sort of.
II-COMPETENCE

§4-Jurisdiction
1.The jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters provided on conventions,treatiest,except where an existing international body already deals with the issues,and:
a.the interpretation of a treaty
b.any question of international law
c.the breach of an international obligation.
2.The Court shall apply:
a.international conventions
b.international custom
c.the general principles of law.

Awful lot for a little court to deal with, even if it's siphoned through lower court systems. I don't want an international body that I won't have a judge in interpreting my treaties. I think "international custom" and "the general principles of the law" are ambiguous and dangerous. This court has concurrent jurisdiction with singular nations on an absurd amount of issues, and being assumedly a higher court (final, nonappealable) it can steal any case it chooses. And I still think enforcement is pointless and already covered.

III-PROCEDURE

§5-Parties of the process

1.Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.

NationStates, you mean? ...Keep in mind that these annoying and frivolous questions are here to point out the continual ambiguity and openness to corruption that is this resolution. America--- might be glad to hear that they could take the entire court on a technicality.

2.The Court may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it.

And are also immune to law, so would make pretty good spies considering their job is to interpret what's relevant to the cases before them.

§6–Delegation
The parties shall be represented by agents,with the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court.They shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties.

Space after period after Court. And again with the ambiguous phrasing. Ever heard of the Necessary and Proper, or more aptly named, Elastic Clause? This judiciary can stretch a lot of power in their favor, and not just for upholding the law.

§7-Documents
1.The official languages shall be French and English,but the Court shall authorize the use of other languages.

No reason to single out a language. Worthless non-issue. You could use this space to clarify other stuff.

[QUOTE]
2.The written proceedings shall consist of the communication to the Court and to the parties of memorials and counter-memorials.

I honestly have no idea what this means. Memorials? They're like written statements, right? How are there parties of them? Someone please explain this, it has utterly confused me.

§8-Hearing

1.The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses,experts,agents,counsel,and advocates.
2.The hearing in Court shall be public.
3.During the hearing any relevant questions are to be put to the witnesses and experts.
4.After the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose,it may refuse to accept any further evidence.
6.When the agents,counsel,and advocates have completed their presentation of the case,the President shall declare the hearing closed.
7.The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

Well, there's the presidents job, at least. Again, this will take up too much time and you'll end up with a huge backlog of cases, which can be hurried through if the judges feel like it (say, a minute a case?) or, if done properly, will just pile up. Lawyers will be dead of old age before the case ever comes to trial. Not that dead lawyers are bad.

§9-Judgement

1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.

Fine.

2.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based,it shall contain the names of the judges andshall be read in open court.

Fine. Minor error here. Looks bad.

3.The judgment is final and without appeal.

By this logic, a panel of 15 can state that the reason for their decision was the alignment of the stars, and no appeal can be made based on incompetence.

This resolution is one of the finest written I've seen in a long time. That being said, it sucks. Really, really badly. There's no point to creating it, its absurdly ambiguous, it doesn't function pragmatically, it creates horrifying consequences, and quite frankly it's just a bad idea. Centralization of a judicial body for the U.N. is less effective than the current court system. Pojonia and its puppet stand firmly against.

---Offical Statement---

The Great Reduccial Empire of Clarksingtonland is still on the fence regarding this resolution. The Reduccial Empire would appreciate The Republic of Freedonia to adress some points of concern that The Reduccial Empire has with the said resolution.

1.We are concerned that the International Law Court would be too centralized. What if the decicsions of the Said Court went against the Laws and Customs of Clarksingtonland? If the majority of Clarksingtons believed that the decisions of the Law Court are against our ways and not benifical to The Reduccial Empire, how would this complaints be addressed?

2. §2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.
2.The Court shall consist of 15 members,no 2 of whom may be from the same state.
3.The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
4.The Court shall elect its President,Vice-President and Registrar for 3 years;they may be re-elected.
5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary.

The Reduccial Empire is confused by this section. What "diplomatic privileges and immunities" would the judges have? How will they be decided based on "high moral charctcher"

If The Republic of Freedonia is able to address The Reduccial Empire's fears sufficantly, then The Reduccial Empire feels that it may be able to vote for this bill.

Grand Reducis Timothius Clarkus of the Great Reduccial Empire of Clarksingtonland

The Grand Duchy of YGSM has thrown our 6 votes firmly behind this proposal.

This is ridiculous...

I mean... most people actually debating on here are making are opposed to this resolution and are making much superior arguments to those in favour... and yet most are voting in favour? I am new to the UN and this really calls into question what kind of instituion am I apart of... people vote with little argument or discussion? There are clear holes in this legislation as the long post on this page firmly presents and argues, and above all else, the key issue here is nation soverigny. Is this not important to anyone? Yes a global body such as this must have rules that everyone conforms too, but this is not tolerable. THE HUGE PROBLEM is that on principle I could potentially agree to the idea of an internation court... but principle is princple, we must be practical. This is resolution ideally isn't necissarily a horrible idea, the drafting of this resolution, however, is just that--horrible.

How do you expect to keep from infringing upon national and community standards with an international set of laws?

For example, what if an international law or ruling contradicts a national law, when the international ruling is detrimental to the nation?

What if one judge from one nation has his nation up in front of the court? No judge from any nation should be allowed to rule on matters of his own nation in any international court. What if the international court has judges from several nations that are have strained diplomatic relations with a nation that is before the court? How can an international court know what is best for a specific nation?

Justice is built upon one foundation and one foundation only. The foundation of fairness. To be fair you have to have intimate knowledge of the situation you are ruling on. Justice is extremely meticulous. Will the judges have time to review and get to know a case before ruling? Can a nation from across the globe actually rule with the fairness and knowledge necessary on my nation? It seems like there will be an assembly line quality to this whole structure. With absolute finality in their rulings can we trust them? Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. There is no way that this could work. You would have nations pulling out everytime a ruling went against them.

I voted no and everyone with a mind should as well. There are some things that just aren't possible. An international court can't be fair or knowledgable enough to rule on things with the finality this proposal grants them.

I think that the dialogue on the Universal Library Coalition thread was also strongly in the negative at times, and that resolution passed easily. So the forum discussion and the voting numbers don't directly correlate. Further, someone opposed to a given resolution has far more incentive to post a message on it.

Perhaps Enk could elaborate as to the points on this resolution that make it "not tolerable"?

Shouldn't this resolution have been removed from the floor when it was a proposal for real world references?

1.The official languages shall be French and English,but the Court shall authorize the use of other languages.

French and English don't esixt in Nationstates.

French and English don't esixt in Nationstates.
Yes, they do. Actually, I'm not sure about French. Many nations have declared their official language English, or recognized the use thereof within their nations. Somebody might be using French, I don't know.

The offical position of Walljasperia is as follows:

"Walljasperia doesn't need a group judges who do not have an understanding of the regional politics of the Wicky Wicky Wild Wild West. I believe that regions without representation in this court would suffer from poor rulings. What works elsewhere is not necessarily going to work in Walljasperia or the Wicky Wicky Wild Wild West for that matter. Keep in mind that a cultural misunderstanding of the court could lead to war.

Walljasperia votes no unless matters pertaining to regions are deliberated by members of the regions directly involved."

-Emperor Matt Walljasper

The Grand Duchy of YGSM has thrown our 6 votes firmly behind this proposal.

Might I ask why? I'd love to hear your position.

I think that the dialogue on the Universal Library Coalition thread was also strongly in the negative at times, and that resolution passed easily. So the forum discussion and the voting numbers don't directly correlate. Further, someone opposed to a given resolution has far more incentive to post a message on it.

Not really. We are more likely to point out what's wrong than what's right about a res, but if a proposal truly merits support and isn't just a sort of dead thing that nobody wants to touch, then you'll see lots of supporters mixing it up in U.N. debates.

Perhaps Enk could elaborate as to the points on this resolution that make it "not tolerable"?
He specifically referenced what he called "superior arguments" posted earlier. I'm not saying they are (scratch that, yes I am) but you might want to assume he has nothing new to say and instead refute those substantial points which were referenced. There were, after all, lots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8465469&postcount=46) of (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8465716&postcount=47) them. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8466147&postcount=50)

Yes, they do. Actually, I'm not sure about French. Many nations have declared their official language English, or recognized the use thereof within their nations. Somebody might be using French, I don't know.

I happened upon some French NationStates during a telegram campaign, so yeah, the language exists. But I still find that clause useless in general.

French and English don't esixt in Nationstates.
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/French
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/English

Let's not nitpick the rules to absurdity, shall we?

The reason I see this resolution as fundamentally strong is that it provides a method by which disputes between nations can be resolved with the backing of a vast international community. I, for one, do not see cases being judged before the ICJ unless both parties have agreed to abide by the outcome, for example. If "Nation A" and "Nation B" are locked in some sort of dispute, and they both agree to abide by the Court's decision, all is well, as the "losing" party is going to be in an awkward position should that nation renege on the earlier arrangement; it would likely be more advantageous to accept the verdict. On the other hand, if "Nation A" refuses to abide by the Court's decision even before a case is brought to the ICJ, I don't see much good that a ruling in favor of "Nation B" can do. From a pragmatist's viewpoint, if such a situation arose, it would likely have to be resolved through intervention by allies of "A" or "B", intervention by the entire international community, or through force.

So I see the ICJ as an important tool in the "diplomatic toolbox", along with the Pretenama Panel and the General Assembly itself. Certainly Krioval would be willing to have the ICJ hear a case involving, say, whether territorial waters extend 50 km or 60 km from our islands, especially if said dispute was threatening to explode into a messy war involving multiple allies, geographic regions, or even planets! Somehow, I feel the issue should be resolved without all that violence. International cooperation is valuable to Krioval, even at the occasional slight inconvenience.

Lord Jevo Telovar
United Nations Ambassador
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

The reason I see this resolution as fundamentally strong is that it provides a method by which disputes between nations can be resolved with the backing of a vast international community. I, for one, do not see cases being judged before the ICJ unless both parties have agreed to abide by the outcome, for example.

But is that specified in the resolution? Again, ambiguity is deadly. What you see isn't what you get, unless you're looking directly at the text.

If "Nation A" and "Nation B" are locked in some sort of dispute, and they both agree to abide by the Court's decision, all is well, as the "losing" party is going to be in an awkward position should that nation renege on the earlier arrangement; it would likely be more advantageous to accept the verdict. On the other hand, if "Nation A" refuses to abide by the Court's decision even before a case is brought to the ICJ, I don't see much good that a ruling in favor of "Nation B" can do. From a pragmatist's viewpoint, if such a situation arose, it would likely have to be resolved through intervention by allies of "A" or "B", intervention by the entire international community, or through force.

So I see the ICJ as an important tool in the "diplomatic toolbox", along with the Pretenama Panel and the General Assembly itself. Certainly Krioval would be willing to have the ICJ hear a case involving, say, whether territorial waters extend 50 km or 60 km from our islands, especially if said dispute was threatening to explode into a messy war involving multiple allies, geographic regions, or even planets! Somehow, I feel the issue should be resolved without all that violence. International cooperation is valuable to Krioval, even at the occasional slight inconvenience.

There are 37,000 Nations A and B with a variety of problems and engaged in a variety of conflicts and wars, and only 15 judges. A central force of that size isn't properly equipped to deal with these situations, which creates not only a giant waste but a lot of incorrect decisions since you're basing it off of fifteen judges elected by unknown means. And you're not going to get just those issues you speak of, since no procedure was designed to siphon the various international incidents into lesser courts. This is just one court, and it doesn't function because of that oversight. Don't minimize the fact that it doesn't work to a "slight inconvenience", it's a grossly ridiculous idea pragmatically and far more than an inconvenience.

Also, you really haven't refuted anything that we've said about why it creates horrendous effects, why it is far too abstract to properly resolve conflicts, and why it is badly in need of a redraft if nothing else. You haven't directly responded to anything that I've said, in particular. And I said quite a lot.

So, I ask you: Why does your vision of what this resolution could be matter if that isn't what this resolution is?

You're throwing a monkey wrench into the diplomatic toolbox... wait, that metaphor just died on me. Ok, so you're throwing a monkey into the diplomatic toolbox. It has rabies, and will bite people. It is also a pirate. Arr.

To The Honorable UN Delegates and UN Member Nations

We, the people of the Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris, would like to express our highest disapproval to the establishment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Our concern is that ICJ may exercise its jurisdiction to conduct frivolous or politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of any UN member nation, citizen, military, political official, and personnel.

As a sovereign nation, we cannot entitle the 15-member judicial panel of the ICJ absolute powers of law interpretation and decision-making over UN members. Establishing the ICJ will grant "god-like" powers to international judges, enabling them to have monopoly on matters of international law without accountability to UN members.

This proposal does not include provisions on judicial conduct and penalties against judges who may use the ICJ to advance their personal interests that may work against the security, stability, and sovereignty of UN member nations, opening a door to judicial totalitarianism. We cannot allow this type of tyranny and unrestricted power to rule over matters of international concern.

Decisions made by the ICJ are final and unappealable, giving them greater clout to monopolize the international arena and shape the world in favor of their political ideology. This takes away the sense of freedom, individuality and responsibility, principles which our nations have been found and built upon.

It is to protect these principles that we oppose the establishment of the ICJ.

We urge all the Honorable UN Delegates and UN member nations to withdraw their support and/or vote against this proposal for it endangers the national interests of our countries, conservative and liberal alike. We cannot allow the ICJ to be an open path for international tyranny and conflict. International stability should be our highest priority, not irresponsible litigation.

We request the Honorable UN Delegates and UN member nations to inform other UN countries about the looming tyranny brought by establishing the ICJ and the threat it poses to our security, stability, and sovereignty.

Our citizens hope that we make the right decision today to avoid the horrible consequences of tomorrow.

Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

As requested, I have made a new thread with the final version of the "International Court of Justice" proposal, approved by moderators (Sirocco & Cogitation).

Category: Human rights
Strenght: Strong

§1-Preamble
The International Court of Justice,established as the principal judicial organ of the UN,shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.

I-ORGANIZATION

§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.
2.The Court shall consist of 15 members,no 2 of whom may be from the same state.
3.The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
4.The Court shall elect its President,Vice-President and Registrar for 3 years;they may be re-elected.
5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary.

§3-Mandate
1.The members shall be elected for 9 years and may be re-elected.
2.The members shall continue to discharge their duties until their places have been filled.Though replaced,they shall finish any cases which they may have begun.
3.No member may exercise any political or administrative function,or engage in any other occupation of a professional nature.

II-COMPETENCE

§4-Jurisdiction
1.The jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters provided on conventions,treatiest,except where an existing international body already deals with the issues,and:
a.the interpretation of a treaty
b.any question of international law
c.the breach of an international obligation.
2.The Court shall apply:
a.international conventions
b.international custom
c.the general principles of law.

III-PROCEDURE

§5-Parties of the process
1.Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.
2.The Court may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it.

§6–Delegation
The parties shall be represented by agents,with the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court.They shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties.

§7-Documents
1.The official languages shall be French and English,but the Court shall authorize the use of other languages.
2.The written proceedings shall consist of the communication to the Court and to the parties of memorials and counter-memorials.

§8-Hearing
1.The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses,experts,agents,counsel,and advocates.
2.The hearing in Court shall be public.
3.During the hearing any relevant questions are to be put to the witnesses and experts.
4.After the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose,it may refuse to accept any further evidence.
6.When the agents,counsel,and advocates have completed their presentation of the case,the President shall declare the hearing closed.
7.The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

§9-Judgement
1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.
2.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based,it shall contain the names of the judges andshall be read in open court.
3.The judgment is final and without appeal.
I move to strike FRENCH from §7 part 1, it's about time that the french learn english!

I move to strike FRENCH from §7 part 1, it's about time that the french learn english!
Once the proposal hits the floor of the General Assembly for vote, it cannot be changed or removed. This proposal has been under review for at least three submissions and several weeks, and your input would have been welcomed during that time. At this point, it serves no real purpose.

Also, don't troll the UN with anti-French posts, please.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Does this not seem a little harsh to have no appeal process built into the court. Laws could change that nullify the courts decisions. Or new evidence could come into play at a later time that could constitute a retrial. I oppose this legislation because it is arrogant & leaves no room for this flawed goverment to fix it's past mistakes.
Yes justice should be blind but do you have to claw it's eyes out to do it.

Anti-French posts? What do you mean sir?

They assist the Parallel of Evil to it's every turn. We will smite them, first off is the Canadian Economy... oh you have me monologueing...

Where was I, oh yes.

§1-Preamble
The International Court of Justice,established as the principal judicial organ of the UN,shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.

OPPOSED! The UntiedStates have funded enough useless international thingymasms. Besides, why should we put OUR boys at risk. It's US copyright law that affects the world, not vice versa. Look what we did with Dicky Douse the infamous cartoon playboy? Steambath Willy is now saved for another 30 years and you can't do nuffin'!

§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.

OPPOSED! Our government will not support anything other than judges put in place by our administration unless they are in a minority. To have less is to have anarchy at our doorsteps! God is elected afterall and as his most powerful followers we must preserve his dominion.

2.The Court shall consist of 15 members,no 2 of whom may be from the same state.

OPPOSED! With the exception of if the majority is in our Coalition of the Worthy.

3.The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Supported! Our boys in Yourack enjoy these already!

5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary.

Supported! We do our part to keep that low.

1.The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses,experts,agents,counsel,and advocates.

Denied! I do not like the sound of this Oral thing.

6.When the agents,counsel,and advocates have completed their presentation of the case,the President shall declare the hearing closed.

Supported! The President must declare all!

1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.

Supported. Secret to all but God.

3.The judgment is final and without appeal.

Yes! Just as God intended!

If this court does get approved in its entirety in the future, it shall be used to bring down the largest of all of the members of the Longitude of Evil. Fatty Mc. Movieman!
http://apolyton.net/forums/custom_avatars/avatar19695_17.gif

-Foreign Minister Kaplooey, Launderbridge, District of Cowards.

I find this argument self-contradictory. If the resolution is not concise enough, yet doesn't appear to explain enough, I don't see how one would solve the problem. In fact, I think it would be difficult to identify which was the problem.
No. If a bill is not concise, it is a problem. For example, if you're censoring "offensive material", but you don't define what offensive material is, it leaves too much open to interpretation. Saying you're enforcing "international law", while not defining what international law is, leaves too much open to interpretation. If "international law" are the U.N. resolutions, then at the very least, that should be included with the resolution. Because we follow the written documents, not your verbal comments here.

IIf you read the "non-concise" parts a bit more carefully, the ICJ would also be able to interpret treaties and "international obligations" between UN member states, not just UN resolutions. So it is not redundant because of that feature. Also, if a UN member fails to abide a UN resolution, harming another state in the process, the ICJ can intervene in those situations.
Let countries sort it out amongst themselves. If it is between two countries, it is none of the U.N.'s business.

IThat's its job. That is what the NSUN was designed to do. While I'll grant that some people aren't going to like some resolutions, if the mechanism itself is abhorrent to you, you might want to reconsider membership.
No. The point of the U.N. was to enforce universally accepted ethical principles and laws which would benefit citizens of all countries, not to create a whole new system of government which completely dictates our laws and ways of life.

IOne could argue that such things have already been done, in fact. The solutions, of course, are either to campaign against such things or to leave.
I am campaigning here and now. And, the problem is the idea that it grants U.N. further authority, with obscure, undefined terms.

IIn theory, yes. However, I would presume that the General Assembly, in electing judges to the ICJ, should it pass, would not pick members exclusively from one region. Thus, I am reasonable unconcerned with that possibility, though I concede that if this resolution fails, a new draft should include restrictions on regional membership.
Well, go ahead and presume that, but I want safeguards and guarantees. I don't see how any could support a resolution which, for no reason whatsoever, does not protect against such potential corruption.

INowhere in the resolution does it say that diplomatic immunity is to be considered "limitless".
Since it is not specifically limited, the limitlessness of it is implied. In law, freedom is granted until it is legally taken away. You say they're given diplomatic immunity, without specifying what limits there are, then there are no limits. Period.

The only limitation I see is Article III, Section 6 "They shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties. " Well, who interprets what is necessary to the independent exercise of their duties? They do. And if they don't, then the resolution needs to be specific who does.

About my comments being ridiculous, it's nice that you think that, but your bill has many serious issues and simply because it was written poorly and submitted too soon, without proper editing, is no reason to criticize my comments.

Besides, there is a proposal on the list that delineates what is and is not diplomatic immunity. Nowhere does it indicate that killing people is protected. Thus, it is an absurdity to assume that the ICJ resolution allows it, either by implication or direct statement.
It does not matter. If it doesn't specify that, it can be interpreted, either way. And if these judges not only have authority over enforcing all U.N. resolutions and even PRIVATE MATTERS between nations, then clearly, these judges have enough authority to judge themselves. There's no checks and balances. It's absolute power and it's going to be corrupt.

Nearly all courts have some degree of latitude in determining which evidence is admissible or not. Since the proceedings are open to the public, I have strong doubts that a one-sided hearing is going to be tolerated by the General Assembly, which does have a certain degree of power over the ICJ, should it be established.
The words "General Assembly" are nowhere in your resolution. However, it does say that the ICJ has jurisdiction over "the general principles of law." What exactly is that? General principles of law.. You can't GET any more ambiguous than THAT!

To where would one appeal an ICJ decision? This is simply a statement of the ICJ's finality and supremacy - there are no courts above the ICJ, if it is established. If there were such a court, then its judgments would be final and without appeal. It all has to stop somewhere.
One possibility is the ICJ itself. In cases between two sovereign nations, if a certain number of nations petition for an appeal, then the judges must have at least 12 concurring votes on whatever action they take, instead of just 8. If they fail to achieve an agreement, then the previous judgements of the court are rendered null, and the nations must work it out amongst themselves, as it should be.

Plus, it seems the ICJ seems would be overstepping its authority, when its judgements are final, and not even reversible by the general assembly.

I fully concur with Pojonia's statements.
There are 37,000 Nations A and B with a variety of problems and engaged in a variety of conflicts and wars, and only 15 judges. A central force of that size isn't properly equipped to deal with these situations, which creates not only a giant waste but a lot of incorrect decisions since you're basing it off of fifteen judges elected by unknown means. And you're not going to get just those issues you speak of, since no procedure was designed to siphon the various international incidents into lesser courts. This is just one court, and it doesn't function because of that oversight. Don't minimize the fact that it doesn't work to a "slight inconvenience", it's a grossly ridiculous idea pragmatically and far more than an inconvenience.

original poster Botswombata
Does this not seem a little harsh to have no appeal process built into the court. Laws could change that nullify the courts decisions. Or new evidence could come into play at a later time that could constitute a retrial. I oppose this legislation because it is arrogant & leaves no room for this flawed goverment to fix it's past mistakes.
Yes justice should be blind but do you have to claw it's eyes out to do it.


first off, if the laws change they should not be able to affect past mistakes. what if you chew gum... and then your nation decides to outlaw gum, and it is punishable by 50 wip lashes... even if you never EVER chew gum again you could still get lashed 50 times for every time you ever chewed gum in the past. obviously this is an extreme case, but It it the principal behind it I wanted to bring up. or it could go the other way. Someone could rape someone. and be 1 month into his jail (or whatever your country sentinces him to) and due to a new technicality, like saying that the victim has to be able to identify them, by sight. and due to the fact that it was dark, he was wearing a mask, blindfolded her, etc. she didnt know what he looked like well enough, or he could then argue that she was only able to, or only said it was him due to the fact that she saw him throughout the entire court case. To make a long story short, he gets off free.

other then that Cenedie agrees with you. New evidence should be able to change it, etc. Other then changes in the law, because if it is/isnt illigal when you do it you should/shouldnt get punished for it!

The Fine Nation of Cenedie is Strongly apposed to this due to a number of reasons. Im not going to go deaply into them as that has been done many times previously, and so you can go back and read their arguments about it.
1) to few judges.
2) many technical flaws.
3) poor wording in parts (easy to missinterperite, as has been proven earlier)
4) to long of a term for each judge
5) no way to get rid of a corrupt judge if it has been proven... contrary to popular belief, if someone is givin power and they are currupt, they are not going to graciusly step down.
6) small nations are going to get no representation ever. due to the election process, large regions will be able to rig the outcome.
7) what is concidered high moral's is EVER relitive. someone who is christian will find things morally improper that a muslim would think is very good, and vice-verca, as well, if religion is involved, the outcome would not be decided by the things the two parties bring to court alone
8) no way to get rid of judges if, for example, nation xyz and nation abc are having a fight over something, if nation abc has an elected judge, and xyz is involved in a case, it is pretty obvious which way he is goign to vote. each nation should be able to get rid of 3 judges or whatever number.
9) how does one side "win" the case. does it have to be unanimus? majority? 70%? etc. and do different sentences need different weights to "win"? (example- 100% is needed to decide in many countries or it is a hung jury)
10) how is something decided if there is no international law about it yet?
11) what is conidered an international law? as i said in an earlier post, it could be either a UN resolution, or just a law agreed appon by two nations. in the case of the second, what if there are two nations where these laws conflict?

though there are most likely other issues also. Cenedie has held a national referendum on the issue and was decided in a vote of 15 million against to only 50 thousand for. Cenedie has made a strong stand and pleads with other nations to see the folly of this resolution!

as wood chip exporter W. Oo Dchip stated so expertly. Oftentimes our wood chip exporteds are classified as, like stupid Cenediens, but thats not true eh!If this law is past. I will make a strong stand at leaving the UN. the reason for this is simple. with this law, Cenedie could be fined huge amounts since she is subsidising our industry by asking for only half tax on our exports Eh. if other, vengeful nations decide that we are just trying to flood the market with our goods and pass an international law about the tax rate, even if we comply, we still get penalised eh. Many nations, are envious of us and are not as level headed or fair as the loyal constituents of Cenedie eh! basicly what im like, tryign to say is that this is a stupid, illhthought out law eh!

even though his spelling is flawed, his arguments are not!

I move to strike FRENCH from §7 part 1, it's about time that the french learn english!

Saying that the french should learn english is one of the most arrogant (and ignorant) things you could possibly say. I realize that this is "just a game", but people's actions in games represent the people themselves (usually.) I know it is uncouth, but pretend for a second that I use the real world as an ANALOGY for what the game's World Population is like. In the real world, there are over a billion speakers of Chinese, the largest of any language group. You're outnumbered, sucka. How would like it if some "chink" came into your house, setup a judiciary body who's entire articles of business were conducted in Mandarin, decided on issues according to Chinese law (limit on the number of kids, anyone?) and (when you were thoroughly confused) told you that it was about time you just learned Chinese.

Considering the U.N. was not created to be a governing body, the "throwing together" of different cultures is not only disrespectful but impossible. An "international" assembly designed to decide over it's members not only drastically quells the diversity which makes each country unique, but shows that the Republic of Freedonia is chasing after a (tempting but) impossible dream.


OTHER PROBLEMS

A set limit of 15 members is not democracy, it's oligarchy. Any hope of maintaining the identities of the U.N.'s member nations can only be executed in a representative fashion.

"The Court may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it." Each country has it's own regulations and rules about the privacy of it's citizens. That the Court has executive decision over privacy sends a message to the citizens of other countries that their rights do not matter.

A 9-year term? If the Court constituted representatives, a 6-year term would be understandable, but not 9. Out of the question.

There are many more "problems" with the document at-hand, but there is not enough space, nor time, to discuss them. And people, if you're concerned because others in your regions vote on resolutions without researching them, for the love of Pete, post a message in your region, send telegrams, post on forums, anything.

The lackluster pace of bureacracy is best countered by the ferocity with which you defend what you believe in.

No. If a bill is not concise, it is a problem. For example, if you're censoring "offensive material", but you don't define what offensive material is, it leaves too much open to interpretation. Saying you're enforcing "international law", while not defining what international law is, leaves too much open to interpretation. If "international law" are the U.N. resolutions, then at the very least, that should be included with the resolution. Because we follow the written documents, not your verbal comments here.

Just to be completely clear here, "concise" means "brief" or "to the point". A law essentially stating "no offensive material is allowed in public" is concise. It is also vague. International law would be, shockingly enough, law that applies internationally. In our case, the only types of those I know of would be UN resolutions. What else could possibly be included?

Let countries sort it out amongst themselves. If it is between two countries, it is none of the U.N.'s business.

Well, that's a possibility, of course, but are you really advocating war as an alternative to UN-mediated arbitration? Plenty of countries "sort it out" by invading or bombing one another. This resolution would eliminate at least some of that. Why is this a problem? Do we really need more wars going on?

No. The point of the U.N. was to enforce universally accepted ethical principles and laws which would benefit citizens of all countries, not to create a whole new system of government which completely dictates our laws and ways of life.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

That pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it? Feel free to say that your vision conflicts with mine, of course, but don't pretend that yours is somehow more "right" than mine. We're both in this to make the UN do what we want it to do.

And, the problem is the idea that it grants U.N. further authority, with obscure, undefined terms.

Other than "international law", which I believe I've addressed above, what "obscure, undefined terms" remain?

Well, go ahead and presume that, but I want safeguards and guarantees. I don't see how any could support a resolution which, for no reason whatsoever, does not protect against such potential corruption.

I choose to go with the extremely high probability that NSUN members aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot. What likely circumstance do you imagine where the entire UN is going to simply say "Oh, fine, I'll take the entire region of [X] to be on the ICJ"?

Since it is not specifically limited, the limitlessness of it is implied. In law, freedom is granted until it is legally taken away. You say they're given diplomatic immunity, without specifying what limits there are, then there are no limits. Period.

Well, actually, since there is no universally accepted definition of "diplomatic immunity" anywhere in the UN resolution stack, I would assume that it likely doesn't exist at all. And from most people's shredding of this resolution over things that aren't defined, I'm surprised that someone reads one thing into one clause and different things into another, just to make the resolution look worse. Again, we presume plenty of things about resolutions as they're passed. For example, we assume that free education for people under 18 (resolution 28) refers to 18 years, and that it includes the age of 18. We assume that clauses that refer to "human rights" apply to Elves, where they exist. This is because there is a strict character limit on resolutions here, and elaborating every point to the degree of anality that some would want (myself occasionally included) would kill the process.

That said, I continue to see nothing implying that diplomatic immunity, which many countries have defined to exclude wanton murder, somehow condones it as it is written here.

About my comments being ridiculous, it's nice that you think that, but your bill has many serious issues and simply because it was written poorly and submitted too soon, without proper editing, is no reason to criticize my comments.

This is not my resolution. I merely support it. There were approximately three weeks of discussion on this particular proposal in which the author specifically requested suggestions or amendments. So ultimately, I do find fault with the timing of many of your comments. If your goal is to improve the resolution under discussion, consider letting Freedonia know your views. If your goal is instead to see that no ICJ of any form comes into existence, admit it and carry on with life. But don't equivocate.

And if these judges not only have authority over enforcing all U.N. resolutions and even PRIVATE MATTERS between nations, then clearly, these judges have enough authority to judge themselves. There's no checks and balances. It's absolute power and it's going to be corrupt.

Would you care to show me how the Court would even involve itself in private matters between nations? If the matters are private, the ICJ's not going to be involved. How could they be? The matters are private by definition! A decent, but probably lacking, analogy would be:

My neighbor and I are fighting over some landscaping done. I agree to redesign some of it and my neighbor decides to give me some of the money needed to correct the problem. The matter is private. No court has suddenly showed up to resolve the dispute, as it's already resolved. Now, should I have instead decided to occupy my neighbor's house and declare a "regime change", there is impetus for a court to become interested in the matter.

The primary difference is that if there are no UN resolutions or treaties being violated, even in the midst of a war, there is no impetus for the ICJ to become involved. There's no probable cause whatsoever. And I'm sure this would be spelled out in painstaking detail if not for the character limit on proposals.

Now, since the two litigants before the ICJ would have to be states, rather than individuals, it stands to reason that the only types of cases before the Court would be civil rather than criminal ones. Besides, the Pretenama Panel would deal with war crimes and the like anyway. So how do civil cases get to court? Somebody has to bring them there. If two nations want to work out a matter between themselves, they can, without interference from the ICJ.

Just to be completely clear here, "concise" means "brief" or "to the point". A law essentially stating "no offensive material is allowed in public" is concise. It is also vague. International law would be, shockingly enough, law that applies internationally. In our case, the only types of those I know of would be UN resolutions. What else could possibly be included?

This proposal is not even concise. It is overwhelmingly vague. The fact that we have many nations opposing this proposal and questioning the judicial structure it would create is enough to prove its vagueness.

If we ratify this proposal, the ICJ would also include treaties between countries in its jurisdiction. This is an ultimate violation of state sovereignty. This kind of intrusion will only further conflicts between states through pointless litigations.


Well, that's a possibility, of course, but are you really advocating war as an alternative to UN-mediated arbitration? Plenty of countries "sort it out" by invading or bombing one another. This resolution would eliminate at least some of that. Why is this a problem? Do we really need more wars going on?

The fact that you bring 15 ICJ justices to decide over matters between two countries will only make the conflict larger. Nation A will develop hostilities against the nation of ICJ justice Z because he voted in favor of Nation B.


That pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it? Feel free to say that your vision conflicts with mine, of course, but don't pretend that yours is somehow more "right" than mine. We're both in this to make the UN do what we want it to do.

Absolutely. That's why we oppose the establishment of the ICJ to enable a level playingfield where no ICJ justice would favor one nation's interest over another.


I choose to go with the extremely high probability that NSUN members aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot. What likely circumstance do you imagine where the entire UN is going to simply say "Oh, fine, I'll take the entire region of [X] to be on the ICJ"?

Our opposition contains a warning that unless we vote against the provisions of this proposal, some very unpleasant consequences will follow which most of those who advocate this proposal do not want.

Well, actually, since there is no universally accepted definition of "diplomatic immunity" anywhere in the UN resolution stack, I would assume that it likely doesn't exist at all. And from most people's shredding of this resolution over things that aren't defined, I'm surprised that someone reads one thing into one clause and different things into another, just to make the resolution look worse. Again, we presume plenty of things about resolutions as they're passed. For example, we assume that free education for people under 18 (resolution 28) refers to 18 years, and that it includes the age of 18. We assume that clauses that refer to "human rights" apply to Elves, where they exist. This is because there is a strict character limit on resolutions here, and elaborating every point to the degree of anality that some would want (myself occasionally included) would kill the process.

That said, I continue to see nothing implying that diplomatic immunity, which many countries have defined to exclude wanton murder, somehow condones it as it is written here.

Something terrible will definitely happen if we grant 15 ICJ justices the monopoly to interpret and decide cases. Too much power in the hands of the few is tantamount to totalitarianism. Adding that their decision is final and unappealable creates an international environment with stagnant laws. How could we allow ourselves to be ruled with laws unresponsive to our changing needs?


This is not my resolution. I merely support it. There were approximately three weeks of discussion on this particular proposal in which the author specifically requested suggestions or amendments. So ultimately, I do find fault with the timing of many of your comments. If your goal is to improve the resolution under discussion, consider letting Freedonia know your views. If your goal is instead to see that no ICJ of any form comes into existence, admit it and carry on with life. But don't equivocate.

Even if this proposal was amended, we would still oppose its ratification.

Would you care to show me how the Court would even involve itself in private matters between nations? If the matters are private, the ICJ's not going to be involved. How could they be? The matters are private by definition!

The moment the ICJ would assert its jurisdiction over sovereign states is an act of intrusion of privacy and strips away our rights to rule over our countries according to our own liking.

The primary difference is that if there are no UN resolutions or treaties being violated, even in the midst of a war, there is no impetus for the ICJ to become involved. There's no probable cause whatsoever. And I'm sure this would be spelled out in painstaking detail if not for the character limit on proposals.

Absolutely. This proposal includes vague provisions which ultimately gives the ICJ to assert its jurisdiction to whichever case it wishes to intervene. It is too vague they could assert jurisdiction to almost everything! And you can't stop them from doing so because there are no judicial restraints included in this proposal. There is no accountability. Its all about judicial activism and irresponsible litigation!

Now, since the two litigants before the ICJ would have to be states, rather than individuals, it stands to reason that the only types of cases before the Court would be civil rather than criminal ones. Besides, the Pretenama Panel would deal with war crimes and the like anyway. So how do civil cases get to court? Somebody has to bring them there. If two nations want to work out a matter between themselves, they can, without interference from the ICJ.

MISLEADING! There is no provision in the ICJ proposal how ICJ justices pick cases they want to hear. Yeah, parties should refer a case to the ICJ but with its broad areas of jurisdiction, the ICJ could just pick two random nations and force them to appear in court and create an illusion of international concern!

The Ariddian PDSR has cast its support in favour of this resolution, on the grounds that its general principle outweighs its nonetheless undeniable flaws. However, there are two points of concern the PDSRA would like to emphasise.


The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.


What would the definition of "high moral character" be? Morals are an extremely subjective field. Furthermore, this Republic believes the basis for this Court should be clearly defined international law, and that "morals" should not be given any part to play.



3.The judgment is final and without appeal.

As stressed by other honourable delegates, this is a highly problematic point. It would signify that a victim of an error in judgment would have no legal recourse.

I've changed my vote to Against, based on Hack's new rules.

hmmm greetings from the one eyed man

this resolution is by far the scariest, most uncontrollable, far reaching, corrupt and undoubtably disasterous proposal we have ever had the misfortune to witness

how anyone can vote for this is beyond our comprehension

for those nations voting for it but with reservations then be aware that if you vote for it then it will pass as it is and be law

fifeteen people will control every un nation and control the resources (by way of having the legal power to prosecute anyone without limit or accountability) of over 37000 nations

the arguments against this are clear and previously stated

we are supporters of the un and have voted on many issues and accepted the will of the un but this resolution will never be recognised by the one eyed man and we shall actively fight against it

also for those of that vote for this then remember that when you stand by and see your neighbours being 'judged' then it is a very short step to your nation, all it takes is time

we hereby offer the kingdom of the one eyed man to be the first case that this 'court' oversees if this passes

we urge everyone to take the reasons against this proposal out of the forum and into the nationstates world before it is too late

live life

The UN pending legislation about the Internation Court of Justice is appalling! This is clearly moving on to a world of the so-called democratic peace and immoral laws. The Court will be a supra-national institution, capable of DICTATING what supreme leaders of supreme nations should or should not do. The Armed Republic of Einherjerne is against this proposition and will take any means neccessary to avoid this nonsense resolution.

The UN should commit its political ressources to shield its members from other regions or unions whose sole purpose it is to consume a nations freedom and dictate its political course.

Commanding Marshall
Carl-Christof Otwin

this law worries me, how will judges be selected?
who decides about them?

An international court oversteps national jurisdiction and treaty laws already in place. There is no way to enforce decisions made in an international court (aside from an international army. I think not). VOTE NO

How could governments ever support this abhorently corrupt legislation, the U.N. has no right to try people for crimes that are not crimes int heir own country. Theres no way to support the decisions the court makes beside a large military force and a facist way of dealing things! No Andrionese citizen will ever be put on tril by a U.N. court EVER! Even if the government of Andrionan must reisgn from the corrupt halls of the U.N.! Can't you liberals get it, nations should not have a force above them in ruling their own citizens, the U.N. should only be an alliance of nations not the ruling body of those nations! This piece of legislation is just plain scary! Now we governments can't even give asylum to our own citizens, that's a right every government has.

So now to spread the "democracy" of the U.N. you are gviving naions poisoned apples so that the U.N. may now dictate the actions of the nations by prosecuting those who the U.N. does not agree with! Leave us nations alone and get your hands off our citizens you liberal socialists.

My government will burn in the eternal sulfur pits of Hades before we ever ever support this piece of corrupt, liberal and socialst piece of legislation :upyours:

first off, if the laws change they should not be able to affect past mistakes. what if you chew gum... and then your nation decides to outlaw gum, and it is punishable by 50 wip lashes... even if you never EVER chew gum again you could still get lashed 50 times for every time you ever chewed gum in the past. obviously this is an extreme case, but It it the principal behind it I wanted to bring up. or it could go the other way. Someone could rape someone. and be 1 month into his jail (or whatever your country sentinces him to) and due to a new technicality, like saying that the victim has to be able to identify them, by sight. and due to the fact that it was dark, he was wearing a mask, blindfolded her, etc. she didnt know what he looked like well enough, or he could then argue that she was only able to, or only said it was him due to the fact that she saw him throughout the entire court case. To make a long story short, he gets off free.

other then that Cenedie agrees with you. New evidence should be able to change it, etc. Other then changes in the law, because if it is/isnt illigal when you do it you should/shouldnt get punished for it!

The Fine Nation of Cenedie is Strongly apposed to this due to a number of reasons. Im not going to go deaply into them as that has been done many times previously, and so you can go back and read their arguments about it.
1) to few judges.
2) many technical flaws.
3) poor wording in parts (easy to missinterperite, as has been proven earlier)
4) to long of a term for each judge
5) no way to get rid of a corrupt judge if it has been proven... contrary to popular belief, if someone is givin power and they are currupt, they are not going to graciusly step down.
6) small nations are going to get no representation ever. due to the election process, large regions will be able to rig the outcome.
7) what is concidered high moral's is EVER relitive. someone who is christian will find things morally improper that a muslim would think is very good, and vice-verca, as well, if religion is involved, the outcome would not be decided by the things the two parties bring to court alone
8) no way to get rid of judges if, for example, nation xyz and nation abc are having a fight over something, if nation abc has an elected judge, and xyz is involved in a case, it is pretty obvious which way he is goign to vote. each nation should be able to get rid of 3 judges or whatever number.
9) how does one side "win" the case. does it have to be unanimus? majority? 70%? etc. and do different sentences need different weights to "win"? (example- 100% is needed to decide in many countries or it is a hung jury)
10) how is something decided if there is no international law about it yet?
11) what is conidered an international law? as i said in an earlier post, it could be either a UN resolution, or just a law agreed appon by two nations. in the case of the second, what if there are two nations where these laws conflict?

though there are most likely other issues also. Cenedie has held a national referendum on the issue and was decided in a vote of 15 million against to only 50 thousand for. Cenedie has made a strong stand and pleads with other nations to see the folly of this resolution!

as wood chip exporter W. Oo Dchip stated so expertly. Oftentimes our wood chip exporteds are classified as, like stupid Cenediens, but thats not true eh!If this law is past. I will make a strong stand at leaving the UN. the reason for this is simple. with this law, Cenedie could be fined huge amounts since she is subsidising our industry by asking for only half tax on our exports Eh. if other, vengeful nations decide that we are just trying to flood the market with our goods and pass an international law about the tax rate, even if we comply, we still get penalised eh. Many nations, are envious of us and are not as level headed or fair as the loyal constituents of Cenedie eh! basicly what im like, tryign to say is that this is a stupid, illhthought out law eh!

even though his spelling is flawed, his arguments are not!
If a law is passed that is blatently unconstitutional they should have the choice to appeal these decisions. I was not saying they should be given amnisty. I saying they should have the right to a fair retrial. No decision in any fair & just court disallows the right to repeal a judgment. In your little scenario Nelson Mandella would still be in prison. Think about that.

However we quibble over a small point in a larger problem. This resolution is unsound & should be brought down

first off, if the laws change they should not be able to affect past mistakes.

I think you missed the point of this my friend, Botswambata was not talking about the enforecement of new laws before it was created but simply the ability for a judgement of the court to be reviewed after a decision is handed down. He said "appeals" not the enforcement of public law or code, lets make sure we take these quotes in context please. With no chance of appeals you have no way of holding the court to a standard, after all their judgment is final. WIth the issues of border disputes and the possibility of a Judge's own Nation being in volved in the case you can never really consider the judgement rendered neutral and dettached like you would want form a judicial officer.

I think this just strengthens the point that there are many Nations with problems with this resolution, and as previously stated it is ambigous and very dangerous. Lets not pass it for what it could be, lets look at what it is.

[QUOTE=Ariddia]The Ariddian PDSR has cast its support in favour of this resolution, on the grounds that its general principle outweighs its nonetheless undeniable flaws. However, there are two points of concern the PDSRA would like to emphasise.

Frightening, and I can't believe I am hearing this. In this scenerio we cannot accept a resolution that "kind of" takes care of the situation, and "almost" gets it all right. This is an International Court of Law people, not a public works department or some small civil branch. You are willing to accept the devastating results of this resolution not based upon face value, but simply what this resolution could have been. Remember an error destroys integrity, once that is comprimised the whole thing will come crashing down, on all of us.

We have no issue with the establishment of an international court that exists to ensure justice in UN nations. However, the ICJ is not that court. If I may quote a fellow diplomat I recently discussed the matter with:

"Essentially, the problem is that a panel representing a very small proportion of UN members will be able to arbitrate on the correct interpretation of virtually all UN resolutions, as well as virtually any other international treaty or agreement that hasn't explicitly appointed a judicial authority. It also talks, rather worryingly, about enforcing 'international custom', which seems to me to be things for which no laws exist at all.

Furthermore, they'd do this in secret, which is totally unnecessary; secret deliberations are all very well in courts dealing with people, but nations don't have a right to privacy or anything else that might make anything but transparency a good idea. As well as being rather antidemocratic, it makes the UN look bad (how many accusations does it get daily of being a socialist / anti-dictator / etc. cabal?)

This is pretty indicative of it being a naive attempt to structure international law hearings in precisely the same way as criminal law cases. Nations aren't people, and treating them as if they were just like extra-big people won't work. The cutoff point for new evidence, for instance - what the hell?

Lastly, their decision will be final; no appeals, nothing. This is just another layer of autocracy on top of the already fairly autocratic structure of the UN. As I already said, the UN routinely passes stupid legislation; this is acceptable within a limit because there's usually some wriggle-room to defuse the more problematic bits. This would completely obliviate said wriggle-room."

In addition, I must point out that only states will be allowed to bring cases before the Court, thus disenfranchising NGOs and independent groups that do not consider themselves to be represented by their government.

In short, this resolution is dangerous and must not pass, no matter the good intentions of the author. I regret to report that Ecopoeia may consider terminating its long and fruitful association with the UN should the ICJ come into being.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

hmmm greetings from the one eyed man

nations should not leave the united nations because they disagree with a resolution

while you are a member you can fight what you disagree with in a meaningful way by repeals and persuasion

once you leave you are a nation alone and if this resolution goes through you are a nation alone against a united nations of 37000 possibly corrupted by 15 individuals...

those of us that try to vote through sensible legislature must remain in the un despite our very real concerns otherwise we shall get into a vicious circle and the foxes will rule the chicken coop

post your concerns on message boards and get your voice heard

live life

Just curious about how this isn't a conflict of interest? Maybe this was answered already, but I honestly got too bored around page 4 to read the rest. I would honestly hope that the legislative branch of the world government would not be able to set up the judicial branch of the world government. What's to stop the delegates of the world who have unfavorable outcomes from the court from banding together and repealing the entire court from existing?

hmmm greetings from the one eyed man

nations should not leave the united nations because they disagree with a resolution

while you are a member you can fight what you disagree with in a meaningful way by repeals and persuasion

once you leave you are a nation alone and if this resolution goes through you are a nation alone against a united nations of 37000 possibly corrupted by 15 individuals...

those of us that try to vote through sensible legislature must remain in the un despite our very real concerns otherwise we shall get into a vicious circle and the foxes will rule the chicken coop

post your concerns on message boards and get your voice heard

live life
Thank you for your concern. I have made similar statements myself to other nations that have considered leaving the UN. Ecopoeia is merely considering resignation for the moment, for a number of reasons not limited to the dangers inherent in this resolution. We certainly won't take such action lightly. However, membership of an institution that is consistently passing legislation that we oppose is beginning to seem a touch contrary.

The Ariddian PDSR has cast its support in favour of this resolution, on the grounds that its general principle outweighs its nonetheless undeniable flaws.

We believe you should NOT support this resolution because of its undeniable flaws. Although we too believe in the general principle, this legislation is only as strong as weakest link. There are many weak links in this proposal that CONTRADICT what I believe to be the general principle of the bill.

I ask you, how do you define 'general principle'? What you see (or what I see for that matter) as the general principle in this bill may not be the same as what the writer of the bill thought the general prinicple to be.

The people of Saint Jeanvrin urge you to reconsider your vote.

King Octave IV
The Constitutional Monarchy of Saint Jeanvrin

I will be voting against this Resolution because I am worried about several things:

1) How the Judges are chosen, and who says what the best moral character is for a judge

2)The complete lack of an Appeals process, which is surely a breach of Human Rights and also against all democratic and fair criminal justice systems

3)How can the International Court uphold these sentences? Where will those convicted be held? Will there be a single country holding criminals? Where will the Courts be based? The only way to uphold sentences is with a military or policing force, and these are specifically forbidden to be created, rendering the sentences useless - who is to stop the accused from merely not turning up, or escaping?

The United States of Hamilcar rejects this proposal and states our objections as follows :

1. Composition
"The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities."
- the proposal makes no provision for the necessity of removal of any or all members of the Court. As such, any corrupt or otherwise unacceptable behavior on those on the Court will go unpunished.

2. COMPETENCE
"2.The Court shall apply:
a.international conventions
b.international custom
c.the general principles of law."
- whose customs shall be applied when thousands of member nations' customs vary so widely? whose general principles of law shall be applied where the same factor provides for such a difference between member nations, and where said culture may make a 'general principle of law' for one member nation so different from another's?

"Judgement
3.The judgment is final and without appeal."

- This is unacceptable. Judgement without appeal is not justice. It is effective disposal of a case, and where the fate of nations are concerned, it is liable to cause a conflagration by backing a member nation into a corner. Some attempt must be made for an appeal process, or mediation between parties. This is the clause that most offends and prevents Hamilcar from supporting the proposal.

If passed, and Hamilcar is forced to participate in the Court, she will have to reconsider her place in the UN.

Her Royal Loveliness, Queen Smukke III has enjoyed the discussion here. At first, when another concerned member state contacted us via telegram, we responded that any proposal for justice was a good idea and that any flaws could be later repaired. Upon reading this thread, we have come to believe that although there was opportunity to repair the flaws earlier, the repairs were not done, and we see no effort to do so.

Thus, we change our vote to 'against' and, as delegate for Happy Valley, we encourage our neighbors to do the same.

We remain committed to the idea of justice, but we believe that this proposal is fatally flawed in the areas of judicial salaries, appeals and 'competence'.

What this proposal represents, in its simpliest form is the establishment of an institution for the binding arbitration of disputes between two or more nations.
That explain the use of the word "court" (as that is the nominclature in RL for arbitration tribunals, e.g., the body that arbitrates issues concerning drug use by Olympic athletes is called the "Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS)." A body that serves as the decision maker in binding arbitration issues its decision without there being a right of appeal or further review; errors in judgment are handled by a request for reconsideration.
Conflict of interest or having a judge from a country involved in a dispute submitted to arbitration is handled by the fact that only 9 of the 15 judges would be serving on a particular case.
If this is viewed as a tool to permit binding arbitration of international disputes, which is how it should be viewed, then the Federation has no issue with the text of the resolution as put to a vote.

Does anyone know why every country (with the exception of maybe 2) hates the united states of america?? its because we interfere with everyone elses buisness. everyone should be able to choose exactly how they want to run their country as long as they hold elections :0)

a world goverment (as i see it will be) is just what we do not need.

Why can't I appeal this court's rulings?

Corruption runs deep in this resolution.

Vote NO!

If this passes, I'm walking out of the UN. This is a gross violation of civil rights.

This is ridiculous! A southern man like myself in a southern region refuses to speak French! French is a foreigner's language, and I refuse to speak that sinful tongue! Anyone caught speaking it in Forsyth County will be lynched!

I recommend voting NO!

I am forced to vote against this proposal, as I do not see a panel of 15 judges being representative of everyone in the world. I cannot just simply trust that the judges will be chosen in a way that is satisfactory to all UN member nations.

Originally posted by Kung Fu Demon Slayers Quote:
Originally Posted by Cenedie
first off, if the laws change they should not be able to affect past mistakes.


I think you missed the point of this my friend, Botswambata was not talking about the enforecement of new laws before it was created but simply the ability for a judgement of the court to be reviewed after a decision is handed down. He said "appeals" not the enforcement of public law or code, lets make sure we take these quotes in context please. With no chance of appeals you have no way of holding the court to a standard, after all their judgment is final.

Im not saying there should be no appeals, if you read the rest of my writing, the next line infact, you would find that we, the great people if Cenedie agree with you, and there should be appeals, just not because of change in laws.

WIth the issues of border disputes and the possibility of a Judge's own Nation being in volved in the case you can never really consider the judgement rendered neutral and dettached like you would want form a judicial officer.

I believe i said the same thing and there should be a way to nullify "x" number of judges, for each party in the dispute

I think this just strengthens the point that there are many Nations with problems with this resolution, and as previously stated it is ambigous and very dangerous. Lets not pass it for what it could be, lets look at what it is.

couldnt agree more, DOWN WITH THIS RESOLUTION!

If a law is passed that is blatently unconstitutional they should have the choice to appeal these decisions. I was not saying they should be given amnisty. I saying they should have the right to a fair retrial. No decision in any fair & just court disallows the right to repeal a judgment. In your little scenario Nelson Mandella would still be in prison. Think about that.

Dont have a clue who he is to be honest (actually i recongnise the name, but cant think of why) and their are obviously some cases where things hurt more then help... but the law is the law, if it is broken, do the time!

However we quibble over a small point in a larger problem. This resolution is unsound & should be brought down

Even people who argue over points agree this is bad, WHY are people VOTING FOR THIS UNSOUND RESOLUTION!

Does anyone know why every country (with the exception of maybe 2) hates the united states of america??
Frisbeeteria doesn't have a problem with http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=america. Anyone else have a problem with them? Anyone?

I find it interesting that Freedonia is nowhere to be found since all these faults in his/her manuscript have come to light. I, personally, really wouldn't mind a repeal of the document, and another draft. It's evident more time is needed to draft this resoultion, but I digress.

We have 7 pages of arguments against this resolution. Now, the voting numbers have stayed pretty close, so for cris' sake post in your region. It takes 4 seconds to type out a message saying "Check the board before you vote" or what not. It's time we/you/us took this argument out of the forums and in people's faces.

CURRENT PROPOSAL: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE[/COLOR]The issue of state's rights has long been first and foremost the vital issue to any state or nation's sovereignty and is crucial to it's national security. When any body, including the United Nations, begins to pass legislation which it does not have the (international) authority to enforce, THEN it is crossing over into issues of state's rights that it HAS NO AUTHORITY to do so. Our nations are sovereign, formed long before the U.N. was birthed by socialists. Why would you willingly sign over your sovereignty and all say-so concerning state's rights within your own borders??? Because this is just the beginning. First, they will get you to sign over legal jurisdiction and authority. What's next??? DO you really want the U.N., who may is outside your nation's borders establishing legal policy concerning your citizens who are within your borders??? To all the leaders in the U.N., this is a way for the U.N. to usurp your authority and leadership. This legislation (International Court of Justice) will castrate your nations politically, legally, and most importantly, it will castrate your sovereignty. Look at the history of the U.N.. It was established to stop world war; to avert problems between nations. What war has it ever stopped??? IT HAS NEVER STOPPED ONE SINGLE CONFLICT since it's inception in the early 1950's. Please retain your sovereignty & vote NO on the INternational Court of Justice. I tell you...it is just the beginning.
President ZIon JUdah of the SOVEREIGN Republic of Lyncoya.

The Democratic Republic of United Sociologists (DRUS) has a long history of unbiased and impartial rulings on the affairs of the international community and has this message to share with our fellow UN Member Nations:

The Executive Council, the highest executive branch of the government of the DRUS, convened briefly today to discuss the matter of an international court proposed in the United Nations this week and a decision was quickly reached and unanimously accepted.

The Democratic Republic of United Sociologists cannot possibly support this legislation.

An international judicial body is something the DRUS has long been in favor of. However, as sociologists, we inherently fear the consolidation of power, and, while any international court would wield much power, the proposal for the formation of the International Court of Justice as described in the resolution currently at vote is, at best severely flawed.

Primary Objection
The requirements for becoming a member of this court are distressingly low.

Primarily, we object to the usage of "morality" to determine a judge's competence. By who's standard shall this morality be gauged? We believe that the law is the law, nothing more and nothing less. And it is not designed to promote or supress any person's personal, moral, political, or spiritual beliefs. Any person who would interject their moral/emotional beliefs in their court or their rulings is not fit to determine the rule of law.


Additional Flaws include:
-Allowing nations to pick their own representatives to the court. Since the UN is primarily represented by the executive branches of it's member nations, we feel that it would be unwise to allow any country nominate a representative from their own nation.
-No system of checks and balances to regulate the court's power or overturn it's decision.
-No description for the standardization of "the general principles of law". While we believe that the rule of law should be standardized across the world so that everyone will have both an equal opportunity for economic and personal gain, but also equal protections for civil and human rights for every person in the world, not providing a method to do so or an alotted time frame of at least five years to debate the composition of the law is unwise.
-No descriptions of how decisions will be reached (must they be unanimous? Majority? etc.).
-No system of impeachment or other rule to to sanction or punish members for conduct unbecoming of a ICJ justice.
-No enforcement power is described, and if the court can force member nations to adhere to its rulings, there is no description of who/what/how these rulings will be enforced.
-We feel that the application of an official language may forward an an agenda and give advantages to nations that speak those languages.
-We feel the blanket refusal to accept evidence after a certain time period could violate a person's right to a fair trial. Specific guidelines need to be outlined describing what is and is not considered viable evidence.
-We believe that if a judge cannot justify his position in deliberations, then he/she cannot perform their job ethically because they must have something to hide. Deliberations, while they may remain private while the case is being discussed, should, upon the rendering of the court's ruling, be made public information.

Recommendations For Improvement
-Judges must go through a stringent selection process. We propose that each judge must be nominated by two nations, one of which cannot be his own. He must then undergo a public hearing in front of the UN Judicial Committee where he must secure a 2/3 majority approval. He must then be approved by the general assembly by a mere majority vote.
-A system of checks and balances and an impeachment process be outlined and added.
-Extensive research be done by a UN Subcommittee on Universal Legal Standardization to determine a just system of laws that all member nations can be held accountable for. A period of no less than five years should be set aside for this process.
-A definitive method of enforcement needs to be outlined (we believe that this standard will never be met).
-Audio/Visual recording devices should be used to monitor court deliberations and made public information once the trial has ended and the judgement rendered.

As much as it pains us to do so, we will vote against this resolution as we would any other that would impose a "belief" system upon our citizens. But additional fears stem from a court whose members can act in a corrupt manner without reprecussions and a concern of the imposing of law with which we may not agree by an outside body of whom we are very likely to not be represented by.

We will remain UN members should this legislation pass. However, if our country is ever threatened by action with which we do not agree from this body, the DRUS Parliment has authorized the Executive Council to begin deliberations to decide whether or not to resign from the United Nations as soon as is deemed necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of our government and our citizens.

A resolution of this magnitude should not be as rushed or haphazardly put together as this proposition has been. It's implications are vast and far-reaching, and require time and careful planning to ensure that the court would function as intended without the risk of corruption or the undermining of national laws, tradions, and values.

We support the message this resolution sends, but not the means by which it chooses to implement them.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

The United Federation of Hersfold is strongly in favor of this resolution.

This resolution, if passed, allows for many resolutions already passed by the UN to fully execute their respective articles. Some resolutions require a person, or nation, which has violated their articles to be held accountable by law. A few, like the Eon Convention on Genocide, have articles on how to deal with such a trial, but most do not. These resolutions include:

#17 - Required Basic Healthcare - Requires that non-compliant nations be ejected from the UN.
#21 - Fair Trial - The same.
#26 - Universal Bill of Rights - Article 9 specifically states that those found in violation must be held accountable by law.
#41 - END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS - Sentences non-compliant nations to a fine, and dismisses any information presented in court that was found through torture.
#45 - UCPL - Requires that copyright infringers be tried in court.
#66 - Illegal Logging - Requires that repeat non-compliant industries have their licenses revoked, and fines companies not using UN certified lumber.
#70 - Banning Whaling - Enforces economic sanctions on non-compliant nations, and impounds illegal whaling ships.
#74 - The Law of the Sea - Sets up international crimes such as piracy
#83 - Eon Convention on Genocide - Sets guidelines for a Pretenama Panel (TPP), which investigates and tries nations and people for charges of Genocide.
#91 - The Sex Industry Worker Act - "Advises strong punishments" against those found violating the resolution
#92 - Humanitarian Intervention - Further expands the duties of the Eon Convention's TPP.

11 resolutions. Over a tenth of all those passed by the UN. All of these will benefit by this resolution, as will more proposals to come. In fact, I am currently drafting a proposal that will be greatly aided by this resolution's passage. Before you go ranting on about National Soverignty (which is non-existant, get over it) and infringement of rights (which it's actually helping protect)... consider how much it will benefit the UN as a whole, and stop thinking about just your own nation. Vote for this resolution, and ensure a fairer future for NationStates.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Author, UN Resolution #54, UN Educational Committee
Author, Deleted Resolution, Olympic Games
Author, Current Draft Proposal, Nuremberg Principles
Past UN Delegate, Part123

The sacred families of the Kage Ookami Batsu have met and briefly came to a unified decision upon this matter:

A great amount more detailing should have been done before this porposal was even brought to vote. To vote in approval of this proposal is a foolish decision which could have grave ramifications for all nations accepting an international court built by judges elected haphazardly on a vague conception of "moral character."


****We believe that the law is the law, nothing more and nothing less. And it is not designed to promote or supress any person's personal, moral, political, or spiritual beliefs. Any person who would interject their moral/emotional beliefs in their court or their rulings is not fit to determine the rule of law.*****

In response to this however it should be said that laws are created out of moral bias..whether or not murder is right or wrong is a judgement of morality, and whether or not a person or persons should be punished with death or long term imprisonment for commiting murder is also moral judgement.
What is being referred to by that statement is a system which takes out the human equation of interpretation, the only way to do so is to build a computer system which defines justice...justice being a completely human conception. Therefore, although we of the clan agree that both the process of elections and the standard by which makes a judge fit to rule needs attention to change; we also comment that a judging council without the ability to have moral interpretation might as well be a calculator.

wolf

I have posted in the first post, in green, all the reasonable replies to the (strange) ideas that you have about legal system.

no Appeals Vote No!

[B]Originally posted by


Even people who argue over points agree this is bad, WHY are people VOTING FOR THIS UNSOUND RESOLUTION!

I agree with Cenedie on this and we apear to be on the same page, although I must admitt I took them slightly out of context earlier. My bad.

Since Freedonia has broken down its law into separate sections, each with its own explanations, as Prime Minister of Plutophobia, I shall do the same. You can call our interpretations strange, Freedonia, but what the law states and what you mean are two completely different things here, as people have had to elaborate on many things which are not in the original resolution, such as what "international law" is.

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

§1-Preamble
The International Court of Justice,established as the principal judicial organ of the UN,shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.

I-ORGANIZATION

§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.
2.The Court shall consist of 15 members,no 2 of whom may be from the same state.
These members of the court could ALL be from the same region. This is a major problem, as it could lead to favoritism and corruption.
3.The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
There are NO limitations on this diplomatic immunity and it's totally unnecessary. The members of the court are not diplomats traveling into foreign nations, both hostile and peaceful. The court could be held in a neutral and peaceful country, therefore, there is no need for diplomatic immunity. Not having limits on it is dangerous.
4.The Court shall elect its President,Vice-President and Registrar for 3 years;they may be re-elected.
5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary.

§3-Mandate
1.The members shall be elected for 9 years and may be re-elected.
A 9 year term is far too long.
2.The members shall continue to discharge their duties until their places have been filled.Though replaced,they shall finish any cases which they may have begun.
3.No member may exercise any political or administrative function,or engage in any other occupation of a professional nature.


II-COMPETENCE

§4-Jurisdiction
1.The jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it
Which parties? Both parties involved, or the parties within the U.N.? This is not clear.

and all matters provided on conventions,treatiest,except where an existing international body already deals with the issues
What is an international body? Couldn't an army attacking or occupying a foreign country be considered an "international body", which is "dealing with the issues"? This is not clear.

,and:
a.the interpretation of a treaty
b.any question of international law
c.the breach of an international obligation.
This would imply that if a judge breaks the law, his own court would put him on trial. Absolutely ridiculous. That would either allow him to judge himself, or it would give him 14 judges, which could lead to a 50\50 split.
2.The Court shall apply:
a.international conventions
b.international custom
c.the general principles of law.
Far too vague. The resolution needs to explain, in writing what these mean. Any verbal comments are absolutely meaningless.

III-PROCEDURE

§5-Parties of the process
1.Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.
This still does not clarify what "parties" are. Is it the parties involved, or any parties in the U.N.? It is not clear.
2.The Court may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it.

§6–Delegation
The parties shall be represented by agents,with the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court.They shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties.

§7-Documents
1.The official languages shall be French and English,but the Court shall authorize the use of other languages.
2.The written proceedings shall consist of the communication to the Court and to the parties of memorials and counter-memorials.

§8-Hearing
1.The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses,experts,agents,counsel,and advocates.
2.The hearing in Court shall be public.
3.During the hearing any relevant questions are to be put to the witnesses and experts.
4.After the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose,it may refuse to accept any further evidence.
6.When the agents,counsel,and advocates have completed their presentation of the case,the President shall declare the hearing closed.
7.The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

§9-Judgement
1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.
2.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based,it shall contain the names of the judges andshall be read in open court.
3.The judgment is final and without appeal.
The general assembly always has the ultimate authority. So, calling the judgement final and without appeal is incorrect. Since there is no clause protecting this resolution from being struck down as a result of false statements, even if it is passed, this part of the resolution could be used to completely remove it, from the law, or at least revise it with what many of us have suggested.

You can call our comments "strange" or "ridiculous", but the fact is that the majority of nations so far have voted against this outrageous resolution. Insulting us is not going to tip the majority in your favor. Plutophobia and all the U.N. members within my region firmly suggest that everyone vote against this callous waste of finances, which will only lead in a corrupt bureaucracy sticking its nose where it does not belong.

no Appeals Vote No!

how immature :(

@Plutophobia: where are you when the proposal was written? Draft thread was on the floor for 2 months. And about General Assembly, I think that it could be more policizated than an indipendent court.


Still, I think that more UN Memerbs are full of RL ideas about the real ICJ.

One thing to notice on this ridiculous piece of garbage.
There is no appeal process.
Which means that if something as arbitrary as a "we don't like your nation" vote happens in this Kangaroo Court then your nation would have no avenue to argue it's case, defend itself, because there is no appeal.

Is that democratic??


Vote no on March 21st.


.....the Vodka told me to say that.

Long live Gatesville

I agree with Knee-Jerk Reaction. This farce of a world court should not be tolerated. I for one, am proud to vote no. Those of you who truly value your freedom vote NO on this joke. There is just so much wrong with it, that I don't even know where to start to criticize this garbage.

VOTE NO


L.B. :sniper:
Supreme Leader of The Protectorate of Short Little People
Regional Delegate of Gatesville Goth

****We believe that the law is the law, nothing more and nothing less. And it is not designed to promote or supress any person's personal, moral, political, or spiritual beliefs. Any person who would interject their moral/emotional beliefs in their court or their rulings is not fit to determine the rule of law.*****

In response to this however it should be said that laws are created out of moral bias..whether or not murder is right or wrong is a judgement of morality, and whether or not a person or persons should be punished with death or long term imprisonment for commiting murder is also moral judgement.
What is being referred to by that statement is a system which takes out the human equation of interpretation, the only way to do so is to build a computer system which defines justice...justice being a completely human conception. Therefore, although we of the clan agree that both the process of elections and the standard by which makes a judge fit to rule needs attention to change; we also comment that a judging council without the ability to have moral interpretation might as well be a calculator.



While you are certainly free to your own opinion, we in the Democratic Republic of United Sociologists believe that every person has inalienable rights, the basis of which are established in the works of Socrates and political philosopher John Locke.

Our take on law is that a person has the right to do anything they choose to themselves, be it anything from sexual preference to the right to die. Your rights are only curtailed when they would infringe on the rights of another.

Therefore we can justify your so-called "moral" laws in an ethical sense instead. For example, murder infringes on a person's right to live. Theft is infringing upon a person's right to their own property. Even drugs can be made illegal (and are) by the potential risk that a person under the influence can cause to others, such as taking hallucinogenic mushrooms and then getting behind the wheel of a car.

But when morality enters the picture in a legal form, then a belief system is being reinforced by the government and infringing on others' right to choose their own deinition of morality. If, for example, a person believes abortion is murder, but cannot prove it, then they cannot force people who do not agree to share their beliefs. If that person doesn'twant to have an abortion, then they don't have to. But if someone doesn't believe it is murder, then they have every right to have on if they so choose. Therefore, if a judge were to rule that a person committed murder because they had an abortion, then that judge would be forcing their morality upon someone who did not shareh is beliefs.

In the DRUS, we hold the right to define one's own path as sacred, so long as that path does not interfere with the ability of another to choose his own way.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
The Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

Besides the fact that there is no appeal process and the host of other problems....

French and English?

How many nations speak French?

If you want multi-lingual then do a language besides English that people actually speak.

Try Spanish.

I wouldn't have voted for this solely on that principle, but combined with the rest......Vote NO

@Plutophobia: where are you when the proposal was written? Draft thread was on the floor for 2 months. And about General Assembly, I think that it could be more policizated than an indipendent court.
The Commonwealth of Plutophobia has only been recently established. As for what you said... Regardless, it says its rulings are final. If that means they cannot change their minds, so be it. But it should not even imply that they have ultimate, and God-like authority.

I too am appalled at the lack of input many current critics had given Freedonia over the past several weeks. Though I would naturally assume that if those issues were corrected and the amended proposal submitted that all the people whose "no" votes are said to hinge on a single aspect would then become "yes" votes. Is that the case?

The People's Republic of The Grand Mystic believes that the Draft in question has many valid points over the protection of human and civil liberties. However, without any appeals process, what happens if new evidence arises that clearly shows atrocities being committed? Shall they fall upon deaf ears?

The People's Republic also agrees on many of the points highlighted by the Prime Minister of Plutophobia as being problamatic to the Draft overall. Calling us naysayers "immature" and "strange" because our opinion is different from yours is no way to convince us why we should accept this Draft. I will be urging the member States of the Marxist Leninist Party to vote against this proposal.

I too am appalled at the lack of input many current critics had given Freedonia over the past several weeks. Though I would naturally assume that if those issues were corrected and the amended proposal submitted that all the people whose "no" votes are said to hinge on a single aspect would then become "yes" votes. Is that the case?

From what I have seen, this seems to be the case so far. Perhaps if at least some sort of appeals process was in place, a larger number of nations would probably vote for this proposal. However, Plutophobia has also brought up a few more points that could be debated over as well.

We feel that the idea of an International Judicial System is a good one and could finally find a legitimate way to punish human and civil rights violators. However, we think that this resolution is far too vague and all-encompassing and would not vote for it if mere modifications were made. We suggest that the bill be totally dismissed and the plan be re-written from scratch.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

The Empire of Amnalos is against this proposal.

I have quibbles against most of the articles, but I'll confine myself to discussing the four major objections I have to this repulsive document.

1) 9 year terms are too long, and there appears to be no procedure laid down for removing a judge from office. The argument of a corrupt and criminal judge has been raised and, I feel, has not been answered. There is also the chance that a judge may die or become too ill to work.

2) "The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law."

Who decides what "high moral character" is? This may vary from nation to nation. If the UN decide, for instance, that the democratic process is moral behaviour then member nations in which democracy has always resulted in great hardships and mismanagement, and been permanently disposed of, will be out of luck.

3) The preamble says that the ICJ is to be the "judicial organ of the UN", but nowhere in the document itself do I see anything that says the ICJ has jurisdiction over only UN nations. The ICJ cannot be allowed to decide the fates of non-UN nations. The only way for these nations to be safe from the monstrous Court is to join the UN and attempt to influence the organization from within. Coercing nations into UN membership is a corruption of the UN's ideals and cannot be allowed.

4) Refusal to hear appeals and refusal to accept new evidence is evil and wrong. It is a crime against the ideal of justice in my Empire and will not be tolerated.

Suppose a nation X is ruled by a thoroughly horrible person and the ICJ judges to impose sanctions on nation X for a period of 50 years. Now suppose there is a coup in nation X and the corrupt government overthrown, replaced by a far more reasonable one. The new government would be forced to swallow the original judgement, without any possibility of the sanctions being lifted, even though it is no longer in the UN's interests to continue them.



I consider this vile Court to be an abomination and an affront to Justice, and I hope it is voted down and squashed forever.

Yours sincerely,
Emperor Kano IV of Amnalos

Suppose a nation X is ruled by a thoroughly horrible person and the ICJ judges to impose sanctions on nation X for a period of 50 years. Now suppose there is a coup in nation X and the corrupt government overthrown, replaced by a far more reasonable one. The new government would be forced to swallow the original judgement, without any possibility of the sanctions being lifted, even though it is no longer in the UN's interests to continue them.

I highly doubt that. For one, if a national government changes, I would expect the UN recognizes the new government as new. Also, the UN as a whole could overturn whatever it pleases (RPed, of course). If nobody wants to uphold the sanctions, they're gone.

Our new review of the proposal reveals that the ICJ's jurisdiction will also include non-NSUN nations.

The ICJ proposal states:

"The jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters provided on conventions,treatiest,except where an existing international body already deals with the issues,and:
a.the interpretation of a treaty
b.any question of international law
c.the breach of an international obligation."

The ICJ will not only assert its power on ratified NSUN resolutions and NSUN members but will also assert its power on "all matters provided on conventions [and] treaties" outside the UN between two non-NSUN nations.

Withdrawing your nation from UN membership will not protect you from the ICJ's intrusion. ICJ will interfere with your regional defense treaty. ICJ will interfere with your economic security treaty. ICJ will interfere with any matter regardless of non-membership. And the most horrible part of it is: their decision is final and unappealable. So if the ICJ decides to vote against your regional or national interest, there's no way to overturn that decision. Say goodbye to your national sovereignty.

VOTE AGAINST TYRANNY! VOTE NO!

Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
The Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

The government of Borgoa is in theory very much for an Internetional Court of Justice. We believe this could be a useful body to protect international law and human rights.

However, we are against the current resolution as believe it is seriously flawed. Principally:

"5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary. "
We think that this a rather capitalist viewpoint, we don't believe that salary is the sole motivation for a judge to do a good job.

"1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret."
We agree that whilst the deliberations are ongoing they should remain private, however afterwards, in the spirit of open government, we believe that they should be public.

In addition to this, the government of our friend and ally Pohjoisvalta has made the following remarks which we fully endorse:

"1.The members shall be elected for 9 years and may be re-elected."

We believe that this time is too long.

"1.The official languages shall be French and English,but the Court shall authorize the use of other languages."

Why French and English? We believe that all languages should be equal in the International Court of Justice and those nations, whose language isn't represented, could use a translator.

"4.After the Court has received the proofs and evidence within the time specified for the purpose,it may refuse to accept any further evidence."

But what if further evidence could help to solve the case and the Court refused to accept it? We see absolutely no idea in this point.

"3.The judgment is final and without appeal."

But what if the judgement happens to be wrong?

On these grounds, we will use the vote of our government and our vote as the delegate of Scandinavia against this resolution. But, we hope that should this fail, a revised version is submitting addressing these concerns and with the aim of setting up a more fair and egalitarian body.

Foreign Minister UN Delegate of Scandinavia
Nordic Democratic Republic of Borgoa

It seems a lot of people are confusing this proposal with the RL ICC. This proposal is not modeled after the ICC, but the ICJ - two completely different things.

This court cannot prosecute individuals. It is intended only to settle disputes between nationstates.

I made the same mistake in the early debates, so I don't blame anyone for being apprehensive about it. Freetonia, perhaps a different name would be better.

That said, I'd like to repeat a couple things I just said in a telegram to The Most Serene Republic of Constant Joy, who telegrammed me to change my vote:

I am overjoyed to see someone else attempting a campaign against a pending resolution. I wish you the best of luck; my attempts against resolutions were never fruitful.

I supported ICJ after some initial resolutions through several attempts in the proposal queue. I think it is a well-written, well-thought proposal. I find the things you pointed out superficial, or points in favor of the resolution.

Nevertheless, yesterday I changed my vote from YEA to NAY because of Cogitation's new rules for proposals. Even though they are only a draft, this proposal clearly contravenes a central point of Cog's: don't create anymore panels or courts.

I intend to be active, to some extent, in The Pretenama Panel trial roleplays. I foresee no similar RP forum for ICJ.


Freedonia, I am sorry I cannot support this incarnation of ICJ. I hope you don't give up, and give me the chance to offer constructive criticism on a replacement proposal if this effort fails.

Withdrawing your nation from UN membership will not protect you from the ICJ's intrusion. ICJ will interfere with your regional defense treaty. ICJ will interfere with your economic security treaty. ICJ will interfere with any matter regardless of non-membership. And the most horrible part of it is: their decision is final and unappealable. So if the ICJ decides to vote against your regional or national interest, there's no way to overturn that decision. Say goodbye to your national sovereignty.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, but you have said it much better.

Well done,
Kano IV

The Nation of Dor Eryn is hearitly behind the principle of an international court, but there is no discussion of the powers of sentence and enforcement of the court, which is a serious flaw in the resolution currently at vote. Dor Eryn would be pleased to support a similar proposal with this important issue addressed in a satisfactory manner.

Lauren Britain, Minister of Diplomacy

Clarkestan and its companions in RoffleRegion are staunchly against the proposal of an international court of justice on the grounds that no appeals are allowed. Clarkestan, as well as its comrades in RoffleRegion, will not leave their citizens and governments at the whim of an international court without the chance of appeal.

The Great Reduccial Empire of Clarksingtonland still claims neutrailty towards this resolution. The Reduccial Empire would like to thank the Republic of Freedonia for helping to clarify some things per the first post. However there are two major concerns.

1. The Infringement on National Boundries: The Reduccial Empire is concerned over the said courts' possible habbit of making ruling that are, perhaps, too global and against the views of Clarksingtonland or any nation at hand.

2. (this one is mearly a simple question) If a court decison was declared by the People of Clarksingtonland, per a national vote to be unlawfull, could the Reduccial Empire petition the court for a secound ruling, somthing like in the UN, where a falty resolution is repealled by another resolution?

I stress that my Countrymen are growing weary of casting our votes in favor of this act. If no efforts are made to help clear up this serious issues within the next 24 hours, I am afraid that the Reduccial Empire will have to join the hand of the decenent and vote against this resoultion. If response by tellagram is neccasary, Our lines are open.

Grand Reducis Timothius Clarkus, Foregin Represantive of the People of Clarksigntonland

Ok, first off, whoever's in charge of Clarksingtonland needs to edit their signature.

"Foregin Represantive of the People of Clarksigntonland " ???

Beside "Foreign" and "Representative" being spelled wrong, you even mispelled the name of your own country... Ouch. But that's not important.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

I give total and uneffable props to Freedonia for having the cajones to write a proposal, that's a big thing to do. I must admit, I sincerely hope this proposal is overturned, but I also sincerely hope Freedonia will take this article back to the drawing board and resubmit it at a later time. Didn't get the feedback you wanted when it was being drafted for the last 2 months? Well, you got (at least so far) 9 pages of feedback.

Your idea is worthwhile, but it's not hard to see that the majority of people in this forum disagree with this proposal. So, what're you gonna do? Again, I hope you'll revise. Add: appeals; check & balances; shorter terms; more members using representative election; etc. Your intentions are noteworthy, and, if you rewrite using the "constructive" criticism you've received, so might your proposal be too.

Best Wishes,
Yulna

Ok, first off, whoever's in charge of Clarksingtonland needs to edit their signature.

"Foregin Represantive of the People of Clarksigntonland " ???

Beside "Foreign" and "Representative" being spelled wrong, you even mispelled the name of your own country... Ouch. But that's not important.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

I give total and uneffable props to Freedonia for having the cajones to write a proposal, that's a big thing to do. I must admit, I sincerely hope this proposal is overturned, but I also sincerely hope Freedonia will take this article back to the drawing board and resubmit it at a later time. Didn't get the feedback you wanted when it was being drafted for the last 2 months? Well, you got (at least so far) 9 pages of feedback.

Your idea is worthwhile, but it's not hard to see that the majority of people in this forum disagree with this proposal. So, what're you gonna do? Again, I hope you'll revise. Add: appeals; check & balances; shorter terms; more members using representative election; etc. Your intentions are noteworthy, and, if you rewrite using the "constructive" criticism you've received, so might your proposal be too.

Best Wishes,
Yulna

This is probably the best opinion I've read about this proposal. :)

I think that the idea of a ICJ is a democratic advance in the effort for a more egalitarian world, but THIS PROPOSAL does not seem to satisfy that intention... The reasons are many, but mainly the short vision, the bureaucratic point of view.

It perishes that it is only an attempt to gain easy approval without principle defense some.

RDM

PS: Excuse my English, but I am Latin American...
I try to make the best effort... thanks

The United Nations is a legislative government - we make international laws. These laws are often ambiguous, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose - they have interpretations that can cause harmful effects to specific nations. However, since they are ambiguous, the nations themselves can interpret these portions however they like so long as they still operate in compliance with the letter of the law.

A judicial system, such as the International Court of Justice, is built to interpret the law. In any case involving international law, it can and will define specifically what these ambiguous portions mean. That definition will exclude all other interpretations - and therefore infringe upon the power and flexibility of our laws. And because the resolution is ambiguous itself and runs upon a miniscule and long-termed court, 15 (or rather, a grand majority of 8) peoples bad interpretations can become the strict laws that everyone must follow. For nine. Long. Years.

The United Nations does not need a central judicial system, in the same way it does not need an executive branch. We rule ourselves, and we interpret our own laws - within our own courts. Every member nation is already a part of the judicial system of the U.N.: Instead of a single tyrannical court, we have a network of nations working to interpret the laws of the U.N. in the ways that will best benefit their people and their nations. We are a strong and populous government because we do not have the power to be rigid and inflexible. We are useful because our laws are capable of fitting the 37,000 diverse and unusual nations. This resolution, in its purest form, takes away from that strength and worthiness.

And, as mentioned earlier, it sucks (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8466147&postcount=50).

The Republic of New Mondak votes NAY.

We do not need additional organizations.

Non-RP - the resolution should have never been approved, as it fundamentally changes the rules of the game - there are other venues to suggest changes.

Terry Cooke - PM - Republic of New Mondak

Would be that nations could express their ideas without resorting to profanity, especially considering the amount of time and effort that went into crafting this resolution in the first place. If you don't like it, fine, but I'd ask that people be reasonably civilized about it.

The Republic of New Mondak votes NAY.

We do not need additional organizations.

Non-RP - the resolution should have never been approved, as it fundamentally changes the rules of the game - there are other venues to suggest changes.

Terry Cooke - PM - Republic of New Mondak

Well, it was specifically cleared by a game mod, so I don't know what more one needs for it to be considered legal.

The Government of Pation votes YES on the resolution, being that we feel the world needs more order and it is to our best interest that rogue states and/or leaders do not go unpunished! We must all judge the dictators, not just one nation.

The Government of Pation votes YES on the resolution, being that we feel the world needs more order and it is to our best interest that rogue states and/or leaders do not go unpunished! We must all judge the dictators, not just one nation.
And as a result, we'll end up hiring 15 new dictators, for this court, to rule over us. ;)

Anyone who supports this bill, please, at least read it. An "International Court" might be good, but this resolution will create a corrupt group, that will get involved, where it does not belong. As someone said, thousands of disputes, but 15 judges. And we are paying for this waste.

This is probably the best opinion I've read about this proposal. :)

Thanks. I think people forget (or don't know) the challenge it must be to write a proposal. In the heat of debate, those against a proposal forget that the writer/supporters do not do what they do out of malice. This proposal, like almost all others, was drafted out of a wish to do some good, to make our world (however fictional it may be) a better place. There are no bad-guys/good-guys, only people with differences of opinion.

Note, though, that this doesn't change the fact that I am against this proposal, I merely think it needs a tune-up. And new transmission fluid, windows, and tires. And an engine... and a gastank....

Note to n00bs:
If you really want to know the sides, start from the beginning of the thread. It's gotten to the point where people usually read the first 3 pages, and then skip to the last. If you want to show your support/dislike for this proposal, don't come in and post something 30 people have already stomped into the ground.

~Andi

Our new review of the proposal reveals that the ICJ's jurisdiction will also include non-NSUN nations.

Non-UN members aren't obliged to recognise the ICoJ, so that's bollocks.

While there may be some details that we'd like to see different (mainly the secrecy), we consider this institution a great step forward for NSUN human rights protection.

WOW!!

This is a piece of CRAP! If this resolution passes, ladies and gentleman, we have just moved one step closer to absolving a national borders, national governments, and national identity. Not to mention that there already is the Hague for all international legal matters. There is no need to raise member nations taxes ( yet again ) for a redundant cause.

Please vote a against this vile attempt to destroy your national rights.


Kimo

Non-UN members aren't obliged to recognise the ICoJ, so that's bollocks.

If the ICJ has jurisdictions over international treaties then the ICJ would assert power over non-NSUN nations as well. The proposal clearly states that the ICJ would have jurisdiction on "all matters provided on conventions [and] treaties" regardless of NSUN non-membership.

Sure. Non-NSUN nations aren't obliged to recognise the ICJ but the ICJ would assert its unrestricted jurisdiction over "treaties" between non-NSUN nations too. That's violation of national sovereignty.

The legislation states its jurisdiction over matters where no other international body has authority. Matters not falling into the jurisdiction of the UN would fall in the ICJ. Meaning, non-NSUN nations would be affected by ICJ decisions too.

Let's say nation A is member and nation B is not, will the ICJ have jurisdiction over this case? YES. Because the ICJ can intervene with international treaties, not necessarily regarding NSUN nations only.

Withdrawing your nation from UN membership will not protect you from the ICJ's intrusion. ICJ will interfere with your regional defense treaty. ICJ will interfere with your economic security treaty. ICJ will interfere with any matter regardless of non-membership. And the most horrible part of it is: their decision is final and unappealable. So if the ICJ decides to vote against your regional or national interest, there's no way to overturn that decision. Say goodbye to your national sovereignty.

While we appreciate the effort of the international community to attempt to improve international relations, we would like to remind everyone involved that DLE policy on borders will not be changed just because someone has a court in place. Any ship entering DLE space, including the travel lanes used as regular routes to and from the Earth territory, will be met with large quantities of lethal force until they retreat or are turned into space dust. The same will result from any attempts to stop DLE citizens or ships. Persistant attempts will result in a military strike force being sent to attack, and preferably enslave, the instigating nation(s). If the need arises and no DLE citizens are at risk, authorization of weapons of mass destruction, including the antimatter missiles and planetary ignition cannons, will be given immediately. No exception to this will be made for members of an international court attempting to implement what DLE views as illegal UN actions, and this protection includes the UN member of the DLE Empire.

Any complaints about this policy must be filed on Terrator using the new, and more concise, 117-million 116A Complaint Form, of which 1000 copies must be filed by the complaintee and any members of any government who back them. Please note Terrator's location deep inside DLE-patrolled space before attempting to complain.

While we appreciate the effort of the international community to attempt to improve international relations, we would like to remind everyone involved that DLE policy on borders will not be changed just because someone has a court in place. Any ship entering DLE space, including the travel lanes used as regular routes to and from the Earth territory, will be met with large quantities of lethal force until they retreat or are turned into space dust. The same will result from any attempts to stop DLE citizens or ships. Persistant attempts will result in a military strike force being sent to attack, and preferably enslave, the instigating nation(s). If the need arises and no DLE citizens are at risk, authorization of weapons of mass destruction, including the antimatter missiles and planetary ignition cannons, will be given immediately. No exception to this will be made for members of an international court attempting to implement what DLE views as illegal UN actions, and this protection includes the UN member of the DLE Empire.

Any complaints about this policy must be filed on Terrator using the new, and more concise, 117-million 116A Complaint Form, of which 1000 copies must be filed by the complaintee and any members of any government who back them. Please note Terrator's location deep inside DLE-patrolled space before attempting to complain.

Is inter-planetary legislation supported by the legal bounds of the NSUN charter? Maybe we should change the name to PlanetStates United Planets (PSUP)..... just kidding!

Is inter-planetary legislation supported by the legal bounds of the NSUN charter? Maybe we should change the name to PlanetStates United Planets (PSUP)..... just kidding!

If it had a charter...

It's a union of nations. No one said they all have to be on the same planet. I'm far from the first nation to join the UN from a different world.

If the ICJ has jurisdictions over international treaties then the ICJ would assert power over non-NSUN nations as well. The proposal clearly states that the ICJ would have jurisdiction on "all matters provided on conventions [and] treaties" regardless of NSUN non-membership.


We can claim we have rights over your kitchen, it still won't give us access to your cookie collection.



Sure. Non-NSUN nations aren't obliged to recognise the ICJ but the ICJ would assert its unrestricted jurisdiction over "treaties" between non-NSUN nations too.

And be laughed at. Or shot at.



That's violation of national sovereignty.

That would be the least of their problems.



The legislation states its jurisdiction over matters where no other international body has authority. Matters not falling into the jurisdiction of the UN would fall in the ICJ. Meaning, non-NSUN nations would be affected by ICJ decisions too.

Still not possible.



Let's say nation A is member and nation B is not, will the ICJ have jurisdiction over this case? YES. Because the ICJ can intervene with international treaties, not necessarily regarding NSUN nations only.

And nation B will shell any attempts by the ICJ to enforce its "jurisdiction". With live shells.



Withdrawing your nation from UN membership will not protect you from the ICJ's intrusion. ICJ will interfere with your regional defense treaty. ICJ will interfere with your economic security treaty. ICJ will interfere with any matter regardless of non-membership. And the most horrible part of it is: their decision is final and unappealable. So if the ICJ decides to vote against your regional or national interest, there's no way to overturn that decision. Say goodbye to your national sovereignty.

There is always a way to overturn any decision by the UN - leave the UN. Once you leave its voluntary membership, you are no longer affected by its decisions. At all.

Therefore, this is either an illegal proposal as it seeks to extend the reach of the UN beyond what the UN affects (Game Mechanics Violation) or a proposal with some interesting verbiage which does nothing but flout an imaginary jurisdiction?

I-ORGANIZATION
§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.
HOW WILL YOU AVAIL "HIGH MORAL CHARACTER"?

II-COMPETENCE
2.The Court shall apply:
a.international conventions
b.international custom
c.the general principles of law.
CUSTOM ABOVE GENERAL PRINCIPLES?? NOWADAYS (in this fast world) CUSTOM CAN BE MADE IN A FEW TIME.. AND AGAINST UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES!

III-PROCEDURE
§5-Parties of the process
1.Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.
2.The Court may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it.

WE CAN JUDGE STATES!! WE ONLY CAN RESPONSABEL THEIR REPRESENTANTS. (Would u judge Germany/Deutschland instade of Hittler?) DON´T DISCRIMINATE ALL CITIZENS due to some dictators!!

WE CAN JUDGE STATES!! WE ONLY CAN RESPONSABEL THEIR REPRESENTANTS. (Would u judge Germany/Deutschland instade of Hittler?) DON´T DISCRIMINATE ALL CITIZENS due to some dictators!!

Actually it seems that in RL Germany had paid the Hitler debt. Why it was demilitarized and divided in 2 countries? Berlin wall what was, an infrastructure?


Added some precisation of first post.

[QUOTE=Republic of Freedonia]how immature :(
cause your constant use of smiley is the most mature thing I have ever wittnessed.

By the way thanks for posting the message in Bold again for me so everyone can see.

You seem to be getting frustrasted if you have to resort to name calling.
Why don't you try defending the fact that your court has an arrogant policy of no appeals.
I don't think you've dealt with government beyond what you've learned in high school.

Your resolution if past would take more control away from the nations & give more control to the UN to set policy.
This is not what the UN is supposed to do!
The UN is supposed to help governments resolve issues not control the governments.
We don't want a controling world goverment. We want our nations to have a forum where we can upkeep peaceful relations & set up trade a commerce with each other.

cause your constant use of smiley is the most mature thing I have ever wittnessed.

Have you ever heard about emoticons: they are used to show emotions on text. like this :p.


Why don't you try defending the fact that your court has an arrogant policy of no appeals.

It seems that I'm in good company, like any modern democracy, then. It seems that modern juridicial systems are based on layer of courts and, strange, there is always a final layer where appeals are impossible. Obviously the ICJ is the last layer of the juridicial system, then it's obvious that we can't have appeal. If it would be, a rogue nation continues to make appeals to create a never ending trial.

And if ICJ had not the final judgement, which will be the final layer of the system? A nation? On International questions? Are you kidding?

The UN is supposed to help governments resolve issues not control the governments.

Strange. Control the application of the solution of this issues is not a competencec of UN bodies? Then, why do you have never said that TPP is the most bad thing that we have now on the UN? It controls the application of a specific international issue and it works form 1 year ago.

We want our nations to have a forum where we can upkeep peaceful relations & set up trade a commerce with each other.

Peace on UN is based on the application of the international law. Like only a ICJ can grant.

1.The Court shall be composed by independent judges,elected from among persons of high moral character and recognized competence in international law.

Who will judge the MORAL CHARACTER?


3.The members shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Why should they be above the law?


5.Each member shall receive an annual salary at least twice of average national judge salary.

The average national judge salary of which nation?



§6–Delegation
The parties shall be represented by agents,with the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court.They shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary to the independent exercise of their duties.

So now the lawyers get to be above the law, too?

§7-Documents
1.The official languages shall be French and English,but the Court shall authorize the use of other languages.

The French suck!


§9-Judgement
1.The deliberations shall take place in private and remain secret.
2.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based,it shall contain the names of the judges and shall be read in open court.
3.The judgment is final and without appeal.

Now you want to keep secrets... There must be freedom of information or there must be a remedy for bad decisions of this court.

All in all, I think that you have the right idea, but the wrong execution. You make a judge's decisions impartial not by paying them more or by making them secret and non-appellet, but through the life-time appointment. He cannot be voted out for his decision, therefore, he (or she, I guess) cannot be influenced any group that may be affected by that decision. A judge must be free to vote his conscience not because he is above the law, but because he too is affected by the law. This proposal should be voted down in this version. It should be thought out again, and re-written. Now, let's have cookies and milk.

Therefore, this is either an illegal proposal as it seeks to extend the reach of the UN beyond what the UN affects (Game Mechanics Violation) or a proposal with some interesting verbiage which does nothing but flout an imaginary jurisdiction?

About violation of Game mechs, you can ask to Sirocco. It had give to me the Ok for this proposal.

So now the lawyers get to be above the law, too?

Yes, for the equals reason of the judges: in this way they are free for nation retortions.

The French suck!

It's your problem, friend. :p

I have only insert the French language because it's a diplomatic tradition. But I'm not French.



Now you want to keep secrets... There must be freedom of information or there must be a remedy for bad decisions of this court.

The decision is secret, but the judgment is public: like any real court.

All in all, I think that you have the right idea, but the wrong execution. You make a judge's decisions impartial not by paying them more or by making them secret and non-appellet, but through the life-time appointment. He cannot be voted out for his decision, therefore, he (or she, I guess) cannot be influenced any group that may be affected by that decision. A judge must be free to vote his conscience not because he is above the law, but because he too is affected by the law. This proposal should be voted down in this version. It should be thought out again, and re-written. Now, let's have cookies and milk.

Not right: indipendence of judges is that they are free and judicable only by other judges (generally a Judge indipendent body).

The diplomatic choice is the better one for this scenario. With diplomatic status, the judges and the representatives of the parties can't be arrested by the other state in the case. I remember to you that we talk about international law and not national law: which law could be used to arrest this persons? Only national one! But a nation can make law ad hoc to arrest the counterpart or the judges and make in serious problems the indipendence of the Court.

And good breakfast.

About violation of Game mechs, you can ask to Sirocco. It had give to me the Ok for this proposal.

It bothers me that some players have now turned to just declaring something is a violation of game mechanics without explaining WHY. It is like mudslinging. Don't like a player or his/her idea ... just make an absurd claim and don't explain why you feel the claim is valid. :(

But it does comfort me to see that a moderator has looked this over and giving it a green light. :)

The truth is, that if you go back and reread the debates related to the Eon Convention on Genocide and the Humanitarian Intervention resolutions, that the idea of an International Court of Justice has been around since Nov. 2004 *and* actively debated by many UN members.

Now I'll be honest, I've not had the time to really read the entire resolution (my apologizes Freedonia), but I've also observed that Groot Gouda, whom I typically agree with -- and when I don't, I always still see his nation's logic behind their position, voted in favour. So between Gouda's positive vote and the above statement that a moderator did look this over, I'm more than happy to vote yes and ask that players explain WHY when they wish to knock something down. The most important reason is, that should this resolution fail, somebody may use this debate to revise the idea. Explainations are how we learn and fix things, and thus I think negative comments add nothing, but constructive advice may add a great deal.

It bothers me that some players have now turned to just declaring something is a violation of game mechanics without explaining WHY. It is like mudslinging. Don't like a player or his/her idea ... just make an absurd claim and don't explain why you feel the claim is valid. :(

But it does comfort me to see that a moderator has looked this over and giving it a green light. :)

The truth is, that if you go back and reread the debates related to the Eon Convention on Genocide and the Humanitarian Intervention resolutions, that the idea of an International Court of Justice has been around since Nov. 2004 *and* actively debated by many UN members.

Now I'll be honest, I've not had the time to really read the entire resolution (my apologizes Freedonia), but I've also observed that Groot Gouda, whom I typically agree with -- and when I don't, I always still see his nation's logic behind their position, voted in favour. So between Gouda's positive vote and the above statement that a moderator did look this over, I'm more than happy to vote yes and ask that players explain WHY when they wish to knock something down. The most important reason is, that should this resolution fail, somebody may use this debate to revise the idea. Explainations are how we learn and fix things, and thus I think negative comments add nothing, but constructive advice may add a great deal.

Thank you for the polite comment, it's a rarity here :(

I like the idea of the regional limit elections, but for other problems I still have not see any possible solution proposed by other posters. They said what doesn't like, but not any solutions.

About my explications, you can see them on the first post of the entire thread.

They said what doesn't like, but not any solutions.

It's not for us to propose solutions. We're here to vote your fundamentally flawed, ridiculous, bureaucratic, corrupt, costly legislature down.

although i am not all up for many rights, i say that the ICJ is a great thing, it has, in actuality, solved amazing things.
:) :sniper: = :mad:

It's not for us to propose solutions.
No? Then what the heck are you doing in the UN, pal?

Proposing solutions is what we do here. What do you do?

About violation of Game mechs, you can ask to Sirocco. It had give to me the Ok for this proposal.

To be sure, our position is that it has some interesting verbiage that follows an imaginary jurisdiction, which is insupportable as the UN has no jurisdiction over non-UN nations. This does not make it illegal - it merely gives it airs it may not be able to enforce in any meaningful way.

We have made appropriate revisions to this proposal and would recommend all nations review it before voting for or against this version of the proposal.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8479939#post8479939

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

It seems that I'm in good company, like any modern democracy, then. It seems that modern juridicial systems are based on layer of courts and, strange, there is always a final layer where appeals are impossible. Obviously the ICJ is the last layer of the juridicial system, then it's obvious that we can't have appeal. If it would be, a rogue nation continues to make appeals to create a never ending trial.

I do not like that appeals are not allowed. I do realize that a final court needs to exist, and the ICJ may be that court, but then where are the lower courts on international law? My nations own courts are busy with my national laws. There is little time to deal with international problems. If you don't like the idea of lower international courts, how about any decision may be brought before the GA? Like stated earlier, the judges (however unlikely) could simply say "we voted this way because my left shoe was untied today." Under current resolution, that would be final. But if the GA could hear and either strike down the decision or remove the weird judges and replace them (however judges are elected) and have another trial.

I apoligize for not being present when this resolution was being written, it is not my custom to search forums on NS. I agree with almost all of the arguements on this thread (except for the arrogant ones, like "I hate French" or "this is a violation of game mechanics"), I'm relatively new, but I believe that if this resolution does pass, it will be repealed shortly... If it doesn't pass, then you can always go back and try again.

No? Then what the heck are you doing in the UN, pal?
Proposing solutions is what we do here. What do you do?

When taken out of context, I agree that the comment seems flippant. But it is irresponsible of you to do that, pal. It is not for the UN to amend fundamentally bad legislature. It should not be proposed in the first place. What do you do? Why not start with a decent proposal rather than lengthily conceding and rectifying on every point made? How's that for an idea, pal? Or - even better - throw yourself out of the United Nations. You obviously don't understand what it is for.

You obviously don't understand what it is for.
Given that I have a passed resolution in my name, a Forum Moderator tag on my nation, and a history of working to create good proposals on the forums via committee and consensus, I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what the forums are for. Pal.

What this proposal needs is lifetime positions for judges (though they should be impeachable) and a system of police that would find and charge states for breaking international human rights laws.

Proposing solutions is what we do here.
Oh Fris, that's reassuring. I was falling under the impression that what we did here was bicker angrily and take cheap shots at new people.

:D

So far, I seem to see the same arguments cropping up over and over again. They are:

This process is fundamentally flawed because it allows no appeal.

Most nations here must have a judicial system. Isn't there eventually a court that one reaches where there are no higher places to which an appeal can be sent? I would certainly hope so, or otherwise one could appeal something indefinitely and thus delay the administration of justice. Krioval firmly believes that a legal decision must be rendered in a reasonable amount of time, and that a final decision must be made eventually. That's what the ICJ does; it takes in evidence from a dispute between two countries and resolves the matter, finally.

All the judges could come from one region. This will lead to corruption.

Theoretically, yes. But then, many high courts in other nations are appointed rather than elected directly. So I would consider the likelihood of corruption in national high courts to be higher as a result. After all, the transparency of an election is missing in nomination/confirmation systems. All the judges could be from one city, for example. Yet in most democratic systems (the ones using argument #2, usually), they don't decry judicial appointments or elections in their countries. So why should an open election be considered more corrupt than an appointment process? Further, why it is assumed that a single region possesses so much clout as to automatically force fifteen of their nations to be accepted by the UN as a whole for judgeships?

The resolution doesn't say who elects the judges. So it could be corrupted that way.

Typically, when the phrase "elected" is used without qualifiers, it refers to an entire body of people. I would expect, then, that "elected" as it appears in the resolution refers to "election by all voting UN members". I suspect that the omission of that specific piece of information is more due to length considerations (there's a strict character limit on UN proposals) than an attempt to be intentionally vague.

This resolution is against game mechanics!

No, it isn't. A game moderator has reviewed and approved this resolution as it stands. And it behooves one to assume that several days in the proposals list would have given a game moderator time to strike it if it were a rules violation. This is my least favorite argument simply because, to me, it smacks of duplicity.

The ICJ could swoop in and intervene in international disputes without either country requesting it.

Cases need to be brought to a court's attention. Since the function of the ICJ is to resolve disputes between nations, its function is as a civil court. At least one of the nations in question would have to file a grievance with the ICJ for it to become involved in the fight.

The ICJ can impose whatever punishments it wants in secret.

Not really. The Court can deliberate in secret, just like most juries. Arguments and verdicts are done publicly. And, as mentioned above, at least one country needs to file a case for it to be judged to begin with.

Judgments apply to non-UN nations. This is a violation of UN policy.

I see nothing to indicate that the ICJ can specifically intervene in non-UN affairs. Further, even if the Court did hear a case involving a non-UN nation, the ruling would probably not affect the non-UN nation due to limits on the UN's reach.

Hah! Then all a nation has to do is leave the UN to evade a judgment. The ICJ is ineffective!

Compelling a nation to leave an international organization is ineffective? Oh well. I guess the hordes of soldiers from UN nations heading off to impose the ICJ's will on a now-non-UN nation will also be ineffective. Remember, if one decides that these laws don't apply to one's nation, they also don't protect one's nation.

Why do judges get limitless diplomatic immunity? That means they can slaughter people and kick puppies!

I don't know how nations making the above argument define diplomatic immunity, but this one is definitely a stretch, especially considering that there is no language in the resolution to imply that immunity is unbounded. Sure, one could attempt to make the argument that mass murder or puppy-kicking is necessary to perform the duties of an ICJ judge, but I somehow doubt that many would support such a position. I find the above argument to be contrived in an attempt to find fault with all parts of the resolution, rather than restricting one's objections to individual issues.

The ICJ is a waste of money that won't solve any real problems.

This argument, especially when not followed by supporting ideas, falls flat. The ICJ will definitely resolve disputes in which both parties are willing to find a solution but are unable to iron out the details. Agreeing to accept the verdict of the ICJ, they can present their case and have the matter settled. Further, individual aggrieved nations can leverage international support against a recalcitrant nation by receiving a favorable verdict from the ICJ. I prefer to see fewer wars fought over petty disputes, both from a humanitarian and an economic point of view. This resolution will do quite a bit toward that objective.

About the comments of legality: I consider it illegal, but not because of any game mechanics violations. Personally, I see it as being able to be argued either way on that issue. I consider it illegal by the fact that it cannot be enforced in any nation that chooses to ignore it without a massive military force being involved (and, yes, I will help the nation deciding to go against the court) and it says nothing that means the decisions of the court are automatically enforced. It's just Another Useless Committee.

Given that I have a passed resolution in my name, a Forum Moderator tag on my nation, and a history of working to create good proposals on the forums via committee and consensus, I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what the forums are for. Pal.

Fris, I normally don't bother attacking friends, but in this case I must take issue.

Reading it out of context, you're right. But reading it in context, I must agree with Europlex. Taken in context, his first quote that you responded to in this side discussion was commenting on what we are doing in this thread at this time, not what we are doing and can do in the UN in general. While his second arguement requires a bit of deciphering to understand, he does have a point about bad legislation.

Also, I must say I see a disturbing trend in how you are using your mod powers on this issue. I would normally post this in TG, but in this case I feel it more appropriate to say something here. Just because you are a mod and have gotten a resolution in the past through a vote doesn't mean you're automatically right. It just means that you can be respected. But saying "I'm right because I'm a mod and got one passed and you didn't!" is an easy way to lose respect and alienate certain allies. It is even worse than those of us who are not mods but have been on here awhile throwing our weight around, such as Vastiva's sending people easy readers in his posts, because of your position. And, considering your reaction to him doing that and your complaint, it does bring up the possibility of hypocrisy charges against you, which will only damage you even more.

While I don't want to oppose you, I won't hesitate if the possible trend I see here turns out to be more than just a worry caused by someone reacting with emotions instead of taking a couple minutes to breathe before replying, which I hope is what happened.

Just because you are a mod and have gotten a resolution in the past through a vote doesn't mean you're automatically right.
Point(s) taken, and taken to heart. Let's drop it here or split it to Moderation if need be. All I'm trying to do is prevent this statement from being the whole truth:I was falling under the impression that what we did here was bicker angrily and take cheap shots at new people.

Agreed.

All I can say about this resolution is that although I am not a supporter of international anarchy, I must remind people the meaning of the United Nations. The United Nations was not created as an global government that oversees all countries as its subjects. The United Nations was created to act as an international moderator, by that I mean as a place where countries can bring their problems to so as to prevent wars. This resolution is not in any way supportive of the United Nations and its goal for peaceful resolutions. This resolution would damage the United Nations because it will enforce laws and regulations upon nations; thus provoking war. So I must remind the supporters of this resolution to remember the goal of the United Nations. Also remember that an international government does not exist; thus a international court should also not exist. The only acceptable international courts in history were actually not courts where there are a limited number of delegates ruling wether a nation is guilt or not. It was a court of a coalition of countires all sharing representation in an effort to resolve post-war difficulties. Thus one can't actually call it a court.

Look, I don't know anything about legal or illegal or whatever, but I see junk about "human rights" in there so I'm voting against! :mad: Human rights get in the way of profits!

Love and Kisses, :fluffle:
Karl Rove
Democratically-Elected President
The United States of Stupid Jerkwad Land

I love straightening out those who confuse NS with reality...

All I can say about this resolution is that although I am not a supporter of international anarchy, I must remind people the meaning of the United Nations.

The meaning of the UN is the following, as defined by the Most Holy Scriptures of Max Berry (a.k.a. the FAQ):

What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

If you're ready to take your nation onto the world stage, though, the UN is for you.

So I'm a UN member. Now what?
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

That's basically all you need to know about its purpose. The rest is defined by the resolutions.

The United Nations was not created as an global government that oversees all countries as its subjects.

A quote from the FAQ:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

It was created to be an international government, not to be a mere alliance. Oops.

The United Nations was created to act as an international moderator, by that I mean as a place where countries can bring their problems to so as to prevent wars.

Er, see above. The FAQ mentions nothing about preventing wars.

This resolution is not in any way supportive of the United Nations and its goal for peaceful resolutions.

The goal of the UN is to do what the majority of its members decide it will do. The members have their own goals, and they have guided the UN as it is.

This resolution would damage the United Nations because it will enforce laws and regulations upon nations; thus provoking war.

Enforcing laws on member nations is done by the UN Gnomes. They are more binding than your nation's laws are, and given higher precedence. That's how it works. The wars are caused by other items, as the minority can't change the system and are openly mocked if they attempt to war on the UN.

So I must remind the supporters of this resolution to remember the goal of the United Nations.

Which is to do what its members want it to do.

Also remember that an international government does not exist; thus a international court should also not exist.

See above about international government, which does exist with ease. As for international courts, take these quotes from the Eon Convention on Genocide:

Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security.

Article 4:Legal Proceedings

§1. TPP will be the legal authority that brings those accused of genocide to justice. It will act in accordance with UN Resolutions.
§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.
§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.
§4. TPP will choose where the sentence should be served, on the condition that the prisoner(s) will be held in accordance with The Wolfish Convention.
§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.

That is the first international court approved by the UN, and a few attempts to expand it have come about since then. International courts exist in NS.

The only acceptable international courts in history were actually not courts where there are a limited number of delegates ruling wether a nation is guilt or not. It was a court of a coalition of countires all sharing representation in an effort to resolve post-war difficulties. Thus one can't actually call it a court.

It has judges, it handles trials, it makes decisions. Sounds like a court to me.

Welcome back, DLE! You've been missed! :)

Thanks. I got to enjoy my little trip to the equatorial climates, even if I caught a cold while I was there. Good thing I'm over it.

Welcome back, DLE! You've been missed! :)
Ditto that.

DLE, you may (or not) remember me as asshelmetta. You missed that whole imbroglio while you were away.

I remember. I also note you getting a certain invitation recently...

I remember. I also note you getting a certain invitation recently...
Went there. What did I miss? I'll try again.

This resolution should not be confused with the Pretenema Panel, which is a means of investigating, Judging and scentencing a nation which is accused of and found to be wanting on matters of human rights etc.

This ICoJ i believe is primaraly tasked with ironing out problems between nations.

I have voted for this resolution, i have some small reservations on the matter but from what i can see the resolution has been well researched and I believe is worthy to be added.

I wish Freedonia well with this one, alas the figures are going against at this time.

From the Office of the Grand Reducis:

Ok, first off, whoever's in charge of Clarksingtonland needs to edit their signature.

"Foregin Represantive of the People of Clarksigntonland " ???

Beside "Foreign" and "Representative" being spelled wrong, you even mispelled the name of your own country... Ouch. But that's not important.

The Reduccial Empire relises that it is not human and appreciates the sentament of the leaders of Yulna for pointing out some spelling issues.

Now, to the resolution.

Whereas, The Reduccial Empire's regional delagate, Zuo having voted against the resolution,

Whereas, The Reduccial Empire feers that the resolution will restrict and even abolish national identity and customs,

Whereas, serious concerns, such as above, have not been addressed by Freedonia,

Be it resolved that, in accordance with a vote of the People of Clarksingtonland, and of the Magistracoetus of Clarksingtonland, that the Great Reduccial Empire of Clarksingtonland has voted AGAINST this resolution.

Thank you for your time.

Grand Reducus Timothius Clarkus, Foregin Represantitve of the People of Clarksingtonland

Joshisha, that's not nice.

This resolution should not be confused with the Pretenema Panel, which is a means of investigating, Judging and scentencing a nation which is accused of and found to be wanting on matters of human rights etc.

Accused of committing genocide. Also, guess what? That's a court, as was discussed back when the Eon Convention was being voted on.

Doesn't matter, as the DLE Empire continues to ignore what the TPP says and does as it pleases anyway. Two of our genocides are in the factbook.

This ICoJ i believe is primaraly tasked with ironing out problems between nations.

If you wish to just iron out problems, get diplomats together. As it is, it's still Just Another Useless Committee. It'll be added to the list of UN committees that are powerless to actually enforce what they decide.

I have voted for this resolution, i have some small reservations on the matter but from what i can see the resolution has been well researched and I believe is worthy to be added.

Obviously, the UN feels otherwise about its worthiness. That said, I find this issue has several items with it that allow for abuse and for turning the system from justice to managing to enforce the will of a certain group on the many, and I don't see that as helpful to my empire.

I wish Freedonia well with this one, alas the figures are going against at this time.

Luckily, they are.

And nation B will shell any attempts by the ICJ to enforce its "jurisdiction". With live shells.

So you agree that the establishment of the ICJ would create further international conflicts?


There is always a way to overturn any decision by the UN - leave the UN. Once you leave its voluntary membership, you are no longer affected by its decisions. At all.

The ICJ will only have jurisdiction over UN members??!! Are you saying that the ICJ is a puppet organization of the UN?

The UN can only make resolutions. As the proposed legislation states, the ICJ will have jurisdiction over UN resolutions and "[ALL] matters provided on conventions [and] treaties". This will extend the ICJ's jurisdiction over conventions and treaties between non-UN states.

This resolution should not be confused with the Pretenema Panel, which is a means of investigating, Judging and scentencing a nation which is accused of and found to be wanting on matters of human rights etc.

This ICoJ i believe is primaraly tasked with ironing out problems between nations.

Between what nations? Nations between UN members only? Or between a UN member or a non-UN member too?

What if I withdraw my country's membership from the UN and I created conflict with a UN member, will the ICJ have jurisdiction over the case even without my country's membership?

If the ICJ can only assert its jurisdiction over UN members, is it appropriate that we call the ICJ an extended branch of the UN? Wouldn't that be a violation of the game mechanics?

No? Then what the heck are you doing in the UN, pal?

Proposing solutions is what we do here. What do you do?

The solution is to oppose this legislation and defeat its ratification. That's what we're doing.

Sweet Slut of Satan! NeoCon, you're pulling a Vastiva with your posting. If you had his voice when posting, I'd swear you were him.

Sweet Slut of Satan! NeoCon, you're pulling a Vastiva with your posting. If you had his voice when posting, I'd swear you were him.

.... not that I mind being an noun now and again, occasionally an adjective, sometimes an adverb...

...come to think of it, I've been verbized once or twice...


The ICJ will only have jurisdiction over UN members??!! Are you saying that the ICJ is a puppet organization of the UN?

It's a committee of the UN, which could be called a "puppet organization of the UN". Particularly as this one has no ability to enforce decisions beyond the UN - if that.



The UN can only make resolutions. As the proposed legislation states, the ICJ will have jurisdiction over UN resolutions and "[ALL] matters provided on conventions [and] treaties". This will extend the ICJ's jurisdiction over conventions and treaties between non-UN states.

Alright, I state I have jurisdiction and ownership of your banks. Are you going to send me your money, or laugh?

BTW, If the former, we'll give an address to send to.

BTW, If the former, we'll give an address to send to.
:D Quick wit. Me like.


Just a couple of questions to Freedonia/supporters, lemme sum up what I've been seeing. Everyone knows every Judicial system needs an Executive System to carry out rulings. Where is this enforcement of ICJ rulings going to come from?

Also, Freedonia has already conceded to me that it believes appeals to be unneccesary in this case. (Forgive me if I took your words out of context, correct me if I'm wrong) This is fine, this is how a certain fictional U.S.-like Supreme Court works. The thing is, this fictional Supreme Court not only has the ability to overturn past rulings, but has made use of this power in numerous instances due to the fact that times change. Is there any assurance that once ICJ rulings are passed, they will not be permanent?

Most nations here must have a judicial system. Isn't there eventually a court that one reaches where there are no higher places to which an appeal can be sent? I would certainly hope so, or otherwise one could appeal something indefinitely and thus delay the administration of justice. Krioval firmly believes that a legal decision must be rendered in a reasonable amount of time, and that a final decision must be made eventually. That's what the ICJ does; it takes in evidence from a dispute between two countries and resolves the matter, finally.

At least national courts can allow a limited number of appeals before upholding a stare decis.

The ICJ doesn't even allow 1 chance of appeal. You call that democratic?


Theoretically, yes. But then, many high courts in other nations are appointed rather than elected directly. So I would consider the likelihood of corruption in national high courts to be higher as a result. After all, the transparency of an election is missing in nomination/confirmation systems. All the judges could be from one city, for example. Yet in most democratic systems (the ones using argument #2, usually), they don't decry judicial appointments or elections in their countries. So why should an open election be considered more corrupt than an appointment process? Further, why it is assumed that a single region possesses so much clout as to automatically force fifteen of their nations to be accepted by the UN as a whole for judgeships?

Maybe not all 15 positions. I last checked the number of nations located in the region of North Pacific. They have 7000+ nations. This region could control 50% of the ICJ panel!


Typically, when the phrase "elected" is used without qualifiers, it refers to an entire body of people. I would expect, then, that "elected" as it appears in the resolution refers to "election by all voting UN members". I suspect that the omission of that specific piece of information is more due to length considerations (there's a strict character limit on UN proposals) than an attempt to be intentionally vague.

And this slight omission caused international outrage.


No, it isn't. A game moderator has reviewed and approved this resolution as it stands. And it behooves one to assume that several days in the proposals list would have given a game moderator time to strike it if it were a rules violation. This is my least favorite argument simply because, to me, it smacks of duplicity.

First, is the ICJ fully independent from the UN?

The problem with answering YES:
If the ICJ is an independent body, then it can legally issue a subpoena for a non-UN country because ICJ does not require membership to hear a case.

Why issue a subpoena for a non-UN country that never had any chance to vote for or against the ICJ's establishment?

The problem with answering NO:
Establishing the ICJ is a violation of the game mechanics then. The UN cannot sponsor a resolution that will establish another international body to extend the UN's powers.



Cases need to be brought to a court's attention. Since the function of the ICJ is to resolve disputes between nations, its function is as a civil court. At least one of the nations in question would have to file a grievance with the ICJ for it to become involved in the fight.

Will the ICJ have any jurisdiction over a case between a UN-member and a non-UN country?

Not really. The Court can deliberate in secret, just like most juries. Arguments and verdicts are done publicly. And, as mentioned above, at least one country needs to file a case for it to be judged to begin with.

So what if arguments and verdicts are done publicly? The ICJ can bar additional evidence to a case, reducing the chance of raising more substantive arguments.


I see nothing to indicate that the ICJ can specifically intervene in non-UN affairs.

The UN can only decide over matters concerning UN resolutions. The ICJ can decide over matters concerning UN resolutions, conventions, and treaties.

Non-UN membership will not protect a country from the ICJ's intrusion. ICJ can assert its jurisdiction over a treaty between two non-UN nations.

Further, even if the Court did hear a case involving a non-UN nation, the ruling would probably not affect the non-UN nation due to limits on the UN's reach.

So you're technically saying that the ICJ is an extension of the UN? That's a flagrant violation of the game mechanics!


I don't know how nations making the above argument define diplomatic immunity, but this one is definitely a stretch, especially considering that there is no language in the resolution to imply that immunity is unbounded. Sure, one could attempt to make the argument that mass murder or puppy-kicking is necessary to perform the duties of an ICJ judge, but I somehow doubt that many would support such a position. I find the above argument to be contrived in an attempt to find fault with all parts of the resolution, rather than restricting one's objections to individual issues.

So what exactly is "diplomatic immunity"? Do we have a current resolution defining this?

True. There is no language in the resolution to imply that immunity is unbounded. But there is no language in the resolution to imply that immunity is bounded either! The resolution does not even provide provisions regarding penalties for judicial misconduct and misdemeanors. Where is the sense of accountability?


This argument, especially when not followed by supporting ideas, falls flat. The ICJ will definitely resolve disputes in which both parties are willing to find a solution but are unable to iron out the details. Agreeing to accept the verdict of the ICJ, they can present their case and have the matter settled. Further, individual aggrieved nations can leverage international support against a recalcitrant nation by receiving a favorable verdict from the ICJ. I prefer to see fewer wars fought over petty disputes, both from a humanitarian and an economic point of view. This resolution will do quite a bit toward that objective.

If I withdraw my membership from the UN and created a dispute with Krioval, will the ICJ hear our case? Will the ICJ's decision affect a non-UN party? Will Krioval wage war with my country if the "petty" dispute cannot be settled in court?

There is always a possibility of conflict with or without the ICJ. There is no guarentee that ICJ decisions will reduce conflicts between states. The fact that the losing party cannot make an appeal is a very probable source for more disputes.

It's a committee of the UN, which could be called a "puppet organization of the UN". Particularly as this one has no ability to enforce decisions beyond the UN - if that.

So this technically extends UN powers by creating a "committee" through a proposed legislation.

Why is the establishment of a NSUN Security Council prohibited but the establishment of NSUN judicial wing is allowed?

Wow! The monopoly of power is in the NSUN moderator. Favoring a resolution even if it violates the game mechanics. If it can happen in NSUN then it can happen in the ICJ.

VOTE AGAINST TYRANNY! VOTE AGAINST CORRUPTION! VOTE NO!


Alright, I state I have jurisdiction and ownership of your banks. Are you going to send me your money, or laugh?

BTW, If the former, we'll give an address to send to.

Well, I'd probably laugh at you. Laugh 'til I drop. Now I'm wondering the effectiveness of the ICJ when I could easily ignore its decision by laughing.

Why spend money on a judicial committee when its decisions can be ignored by laughing? What a waste.

Well, I'd probably laugh at you. Laugh 'til I drop. Now I'm wondering the effectiveness of the ICJ when I could easily ignore its decision by laughing.

Why spend money on a judicial committee when its decisions can be ignored by laughing? What a waste.

You're right. Hell, you can note that I'm going to ignore if, powers forbid, it passes. Most of the UN committees you can just ignore, as they don't have any power of enforcement. And what power they are given must be able to match massive military power. I wish them the best of luck in that.

At least national courts can allow a limited number of appeals before upholding a stare decis.

The ICJ doesn't even allow 1 chance of appeal. You call that democratic?

First of all, you don't know what every other national government does. Some may have their "supreme" court hearing some cases directly for the first time, and may allow no appeals. Certainly, a recent Kriovalian treason case went before our highest court directly, and the verdict was final and without appeal. Somehow, we failed to cease to be a democratic state as a result. Also, our highest court is appointed by the Commander and confirmed by our Senate. There are no elections for Commander, and the Senate is elected for four-year terms. And yet our democracy, though representative, is preserved in our court system, even for cases going directly to our highest court.

Maybe not all 15 positions. I last checked the number of nations located in the region of North Pacific. They have 7000+ nations. This region could control 50% of the ICJ panel!

And since when is the North Pacific a bastion of monolithic, uniform thought? Even I have an idea of the subgroups within that region despite having never spent any time there. Though even in that case, not all 7000+ are UN members, and of those who are, I don't believe they have sufficient power by themselves to overtake the ICJ.

And this slight omission caused international outrage.

That slight omission caused people to intentionally overreact in their efforts to find fault with any possible section of the resolution; most opponents were those who disliked the idea of any international court.

First, is the ICJ fully independent from the UN?

Of course not, and if you still think it's somehow a game rules violation, please contact Sirocco, the game moderator who cleared the resolution. Maybe one should trust the moderators to actually enforce the rules?

Will the ICJ have any jurisdiction over a case between a UN-member and a non-UN country?

What's the difference? If the ICJ got involved in such a case, I fail to see how a verdict could be enforced against a non-UN member. So I consider the matter moot. If UN members want to fight with a non-UN member for something its government is doing, they can, and without the approval of the UN as a whole. The purpose of the ICJ would be to adjudicate disputes between UN members.

So what if arguments and verdicts are done publicly? The ICJ can bar additional evidence to a case, reducing the chance of raising more substantive arguments.

In other words, it works like a good deal of high courts. They strongly encourage the most substantiative arguments to be presented early, then questions are asked, and then a verdict is determined.

The UN can only decide over matters concerning UN resolutions only. The ICJ can decide over matters concerning UN resolutions, conventions, and treaties.

Non-UN membership will not protect a country from the ICJ's intrusion. ICJ can assert its jurisdiction over a treaty between two non-UN nations.

Addressed above. Besides, the ICJ will only be involved if one party submits a case to it. How else could such an entity function?

So you're technically saying that the ICJ is an extension of the UN? That's a flagrant violation of the game mechanics!

Since we're having this discussion, apparently it isn't.

True. There is no laguage in the resolution to imply that immunity is unbounded. But there is no language in the resolution to imply that immunity is bounded either! The resolution does not even provide provisions regarding penalties for judicial misconduct and misdemeanors. Where is the sense of accountability?

If anybody honestly thinks that this resolution would grant ICJ judges the ability to commit major felonies, I honestly don't know how to correct such a misinterpretation. Suffice it to say that plenty of nations have a concept called "diplomatic immunity" that could easily be applied, even after this resolution passes. My diplomats don't go on murderous rampages. Why should the ICJ judges do so?

If I withdraw my membership from the UN and created a dispute with Krioval, will the ICJ hear our case?

I suppose it could, if I filed a claim. What's the difference?

Will the ICJ's decision affect a non-UN party?

Only if the non-UN party were willing beforehand to accept the verdict. Of course, any UN member willing to assert its will on the non-UN member wouldn't rouse the slightest action from the ICJ, so I again fail to see the problem.

Will Krioval wage war with my country if the "petty" dispute cannot be settled in court?

Probably. And we'd more likely than not win. Orbital weapons systems are good for "diplomacy with extreme prejudice".

The fact that the losing party cannot make an appeal is a very probable source for more disputes.

Unless, as I've stated earlier, both parties agree beforehand to abide by the verdict.

You're right. Hell, you can note that I'm going to ignore if, powers forbid, it passes. Most of the UN committees you can just ignore, as they don't have any power of enforcement. And what power they are given must be able to match massive military power. I wish them the best of luck in that.

So there's no need to create the ICJ then.

VOTE AGAINST A USELESS LEGISLATION! VOTE NO!

Enough of the huge text almost-spam, please. Your point has been made, repeatedly.

(OOC: I swear I have no idea who Neo is.)

In simplest form, that is the problem with any sort of court or other judicial or legislative branch - no executive enforcement, no power. This UN has no military, not even a police force, nor can it. So what will the UN do if someone chooses not to listen to the ruling of the ICJ?

More harsh language? Subpoenas? And you enforce those... how?

Vastiva, definitely not you.

Personally, I would like to see them even try to ernforce it if they did have a military. That of itself would be a war worth watching.

okay, from the outset, concidering the UN has no military or policeforce, and for that matter, no actual land for prisons, this proposal seems to be a toothless tiger. secondly, as noted in arguments for or against other proposals, each resolution is opened to interpretation. this would violate that freedom of interpretation, in that nations would have to submit to a universal view on resolutions. and, again, as stated, judges can be bought, regions can own it and (OOC: ) the time factor is a big problem (ie: how do we determine when nine years is up). we, the rogue nation of Resistancia are whole-heartedly AGAINST this proposal.

First of all, you don't know what every other national government does. Some may have their "supreme" court hearing some cases directly for the first time, and may allow no appeals. Certainly, a recent Kriovalian treason case went before our highest court directly, and the verdict was final and without appeal. Somehow, we failed to cease to be a democratic state as a result. Also, our highest court is appointed by the Commander and confirmed by our Senate. There are no elections for Commander, and the Senate is elected for four-year terms. And yet our democracy, though representative, is preserved in our court system, even for cases going directly to our highest court.

Since you are fully aware that different nations have different judicial systems and procedures, why are you supporting a legislation that will ultimately force UN members to comply with a uniform court system with no appeals whatsoever?



And since when is the North Pacific a bastion of monolithic, uniform thought? Even I have an idea of the subgroups within that region despite having never spent any time there. Though even in that case, not all 7000+ are UN members, and of those who are, I don't believe they have sufficient power by themselves to overtake the ICJ.

Wow! We feel so assured that will never happen.

Why do you assume that the North Pacific was never and will never be a bastion of uniform thought? Why do you ignore that the ICJ will create a flawed bastion of justice?

With the tempting amount of power entitled to ICJ justices, the immunities offered, and the lack of penalties, it is easy to "whip" countries and align with the region's interest.

That slight omission caused people to intentionally overreact in their efforts to find fault with any possible section of the resolution; most opponents were those who disliked the idea of any international court.

Since you are well aware of people's "intentional overreact[ion]," I could not grasp how you could ignore the possibility that the ICJ will "overrect" too.


Of course not, and if you still think it's somehow a game rules violation, please contact Sirocco, the game moderator who cleared the resolution. Maybe one should trust the moderators to actually enforce the rules?

Because the moderator cleared it.

What a great excuse for supporting a legislation.


What's the difference? If the ICJ got involved in such a case, I fail to see how a verdict could be enforced against a non-UN member. So I consider the matter moot. If UN members want to fight with a non-UN member for something its government is doing, they can, and without the approval of the UN as a whole. The purpose of the ICJ would be to adjudicate disputes between UN members.

I thought the UN cannot sponsor legislations that will extend its official powers by creating another governmental body. Oh--I forgot. Corruption is rampant. The UN is not breaking any rules, they're just twisting it.


In other words, it works like a good deal of high courts. They strongly encourage the most substantiative arguments to be presented early, then questions are asked, and then a verdict is determined.

The point is, most arguments are based on evidences. There is no guarantee that you can acquire enough evidence to prove your case with the court's given time period. Gathering evidence sometimes takes years, or even decades. In some cases, the most substantive argument to a case appear years after the original verdict.


Since we're having this discussion, apparently it isn't.

Yeah. I think its because double standards are inherent to UN leadership.


If anybody honestly thinks that this resolution would grant ICJ judges the ability to commit major felonies, I honestly don't know how to correct such a misinterpretation. Suffice it to say that plenty of nations have a concept called "diplomatic immunity" that could easily be applied, even after this resolution passes. My diplomats don't go on murderous rampages. Why should the ICJ judges do so?

The resolution does not grant ICJ judges the ability to commit major felonies. The resolution entices ICJ judges to commit major felonies. They can't be punished. ICJ judges are above the law. The 15-member panel will be a bunch of autocratic judicial activists.


I suppose it could, if I filed a claim. What's the difference?

What's the point of being a non-UN country then?


Only if the non-UN party were willing beforehand to accept the verdict. Of course, any UN member willing to assert its will on the non-UN member wouldn't rouse the slightest action from the ICJ, so I again fail to see the problem.

Thank you. The world suddenly felt the same way as you do.

Oops... I just checked the current tally.... the against vote is still leading.


Probably. And we'd more likely than not win. Orbital weapons systems are good for "diplomacy with extreme prejudice".

So much for your belief of reducing global conflict.

Unless, as I've stated earlier, both parties agree beforehand to abide by the verdict.

The nature of government is to advance and protect their national interest. Do you honestly think that a government would simply give up the fight without an appeal? No sane government would accept an original verdict without an appeal.

I urge every nation to build their army, we will experience frequent wars because of the ICJ.

Enough of the huge text almost-spam, please. Your point has been made, repeatedly.

Annoyed?

There must be some reason why this forum offered the feature of increasing your text size. I am just using it. Any UN resolution banning me from doing so?

Annoyed?

There must be some reason why this forum offered the feature of increasing your text size. I am just using it. Any UN resolution banning me from doing so?


No, but there's also no UN rule that states those of us who are not on his side can't bomb you in response. And right now, I have plenty of antimatter weapons I need to test. So, for the safety of your own nation, please cut the font sizes.

The reason is for emphasis when it is needed. Maybe once per page.

No, but there's also no UN rule that states those of us who are not on his side can't bomb you in response. And right now, I have plenty of antimatter weapons I need to test. So, for the safety of your own nation, please cut the font sizes.

The reason is for emphasis when it is needed. Maybe once per page.

WOW! How much more if you were annoyed then. Maybe you would destruct the whole world!

Now I realize why people support a legislation that is bound to fall in the hands of a corrupt leadership: world domination and destruction.

I never thought font sizes could bring the world in the brink of war. Its seems much more threatening than your antimatter weapons. Don't push me to increase my font size again. I won't hesitate to use it. LOL.

OOC: Dude, seriously. Chill. Yes, you're right about the resolution - insofar as I can see having been on flu detail all day. But slow down, breathe, and don't offend everyone here, you'll need allies if you're going to get anything done.

Peace.

WOW! How much more if you were annoyed then. Maybe you would destruct the whole world!

I tried that for awhile, but people really get annoyed when you blow up Earths. Besides, the graviton destroyers are being resupplied at the moment.

Now I realize why people support a legislation that is bound to fall in the hands of a corrupt leadership: world domination and destruction.

Actually, I oppose it. But that's because I have enough worlds as it is and really don't want the headaches of an entire planet with an inferior species on it.

I never thought font sizes could bring the world in the brink of war. Its seems much more threatening than your antimatter weapons. Don't push me to increase my font size again. I won't hesitate to use it. LOL.

The world? Try two countries, one of which isn't even native to Earth.

Europlex:

You're not helping your case. Insulting a mod, no matter how right or wrong they are, is never an intelligent decision to make in a discussion. I don't give a damn if he just got done insinuating that you rape cats for a living and are pimped out to 70-year-old perverts by your mother. The fact remains that now he has the right to lay the official smackdown on you. If you have a problem, there is a way to handle it without insulting. And even by the standards of the kind mods on here you're pushing your luck, far more than you should dare at this point.

You can note the lack of a mod title next to my name. The most I can do is throw words at you. But in this case, I would advise you to drop it and delete those comments before the mods get involved. It may save your hide. But if you don't, know that you are only getting what you have asked for. There is a line, and you're crossing it.

I don't think that's at all neccessary, given the desultory tone you took with me. Remember the frequent dropping of the word "pal" in that angry, sarcastic way? I would hope, and believe, that the mods here were a bit more intelligent than taking issue with one and leaving the other. And, in terms of insult, I hardly think my comment counts. I was making a fair and entirely reasonable point about the pen-pushing that surrounds this bill. I hope you don't take this further, but if you do - it could well be on your head.

NOTE: When I said "idiot", I meant "kind gent".

The problem with answering NO:
Establishing the ICJ is a violation of the game mechanics then. The UN cannot sponsor a resolution that will establish another international body to extend the UN's powers.
I don't believe I ever read any such thing. Hack's new draft guidelines - and they were only drafted after this proposal was put to the vote - says no more committees, period. ICJ doesn't establish a police force or a UN army, the only things I remember as being verboten in the Enodian.

Past passed resolutions have established several subsidiary organizations. TEWC and TPP come to mind.


If I withdraw my membership from the UN and created a dispute with Krioval, will the ICJ hear our case? Will the ICJ's decision affect a non-UN party? Will Krioval wage war with my country if the "petty" dispute cannot be settled in court?
No, no, possibly.
Could a non-UN nation bring a complaint against you in TPP? No.
Could I bring a complaint against a non-UN nation in TPP? No.
[OOC RL Example: the Hague conventions only apply if everyone in a conflict are signatories. Wage war against a non-signatory nation, and they can't complain about you, you can't complain about them.

The same is true with the RL ICJ. It exists to mediate disputes between member nations]

Could I bring a complaint against a non-UN nation in TPP? No.


Yes you could actually. Not under the Eon Convention, but under Humanitarian Intervention. I could go into a length explanation as to why this is the case and why this is allowed, but only if you want/need me to.

Europlex:

You're not helping your case. Insulting a mod, no matter how right or wrong they are, is never an intelligent decision to make in a discussion. I don't give a damn if he just got done insinuating that you rape cats for a living and are pimped out to 70-year-old perverts by your mother. The fact remains that now he has the right to lay the official smackdown on you. If you have a problem, there is a way to handle it without insulting. And even by the standards of the kind mods on here you're pushing your luck, far more than you should dare at this point.

You can note the lack of a mod title next to my name. The most I can do is throw words at you. But in this case, I would advise you to drop it and delete those comments before the mods get involved. It may save your hide. But if you don't, know that you are only getting what you have asked for. There is a line, and you're crossing it.
OOC:

I respectfully disagree. As a general principle.

Europlex deleted his comment before I got here, so I'm not commenting on this specific. although, if he's mad about Fris' comment, i'll add that I thought Fris's response was hilarious and would have been completely appropriate if he'd used a puppet that didn't have the mod title, as he was clearly speaking as a player, not a mod. In fact, I found the whole exchange (the dueling pals) entertaining.

To the general point: if a mod somewhere calls you a geriatric cat-raper, the mod deserves a smackdown. if that mod (or some other mods) then use their power to retaliate, the board isn't worth posting on. better to make a big stink and let other users see what kind of people they're giving power over themselves. Again, that's only as a general point. Fris didn't call anyone anything.

NOTE: When I said "idiot", I meant "kind gent".

Sigworthy!

Yes you could actually. Not under the Eon Convention, but under Humanitarian Intervention. I could go into a length explanation as to why this is the case and why this is allowed, but only if you want/need me to.
rly?

oh, well Humanitarian Intervention's a different kettle of fish anyway. It authorizes nations to invade and subjugate the target nation. No dispute resolution is intended, only cessation of genocide.

I am opposed to this proposal because of its final line.

"All judgement shall be final."

There is no such thing as a final judgement, because if you get it wrong in this case........ ohhhh boy is the UN in the bunghole then.

I am opposed to this proposal because of its final line.

"All judgement shall be final."

There is no such thing as a final judgement, because if you get it wrong in this case........ ohhhh boy is the UN in the bunghole then.

i agree 100%. it's stupid that "all judgment is final". if the jury messes something up and finds the defendant guility, he is finished. if the defendant has the option to appeal, the judge could look the case over and find something screwy with it.

The Icj Is Evil!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This currently proposed ICJ or World Court, is evil. At the time I am writing this it is clear that it will fail, but still. This "world court" pleages justice for all but in fact is is an evil plan to take away the sovereignty of UN menbers. This would force nations to give up there citizens and turn then in to the UN. Any Nation, with enought support, could force a nation to turn in there leaders jsut because the UN does not like there goverment! THE WORLD CORT IS EVIL!!! I implor any UN menbers that have not already done so to vote against this evil resilution!!!

the Empire of Regulastan

The Icj Is Evil!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This currently proposed ICJ or World Court, is evil. At the time I am writing this it is clear that it will fail, but still. This "world court" pleages justice for all but in fact is is an evil plan to take away the sovereignty of UN menbers. This would force nations to give up there citizens and turn then in to the UN. Any Nation, with enought support, could force a nation to turn in there leaders jsut because the UN does not like there goverment! THE WORLD CORT IS EVIL!!! I implor any UN menbers that have not already done so to vote against this evil resilution!!!

the Empire of Regulastan
Only states may be parties before the ICJ.

That means, not individuals. Perhaps you're thinking of theRL ICC.

I don't think that's at all neccessary, given the desultory tone you took with me. Remember the frequent dropping of the word "pal" in that angry, sarcastic way? I would hope, and believe, that the mods here were a bit more intelligent than taking issue with one and leaving the other. And, in terms of insult, I hardly think my comment counts. I was making a fair and entirely reasonable point about the pen-pushing that surrounds this bill. I hope you don't take this further, but if you do - it could well be on your head.

An insult is still an insult, and I don't give a flying fuck what kind of nice spin you put on it.

Fair? Reasonable? Bullshit. What you were doing was directly attacking someone, as you did with the delete message, and now you're trying to worm your way out of the responsibility of what you said. A fair and reasonable assessment doesn't require lying about what you were saying afterwards. Nor does it come with advice that you delete it before you get your ass in trouble, and I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have said anything and should have turned you in instead and let you enjoy the results of your own actions.

Right now, the only head this will be on is your own. Unlike you, I take responsibility for what I have done and accept that I have done it. I have no need to hide it, no need to twist it in my favor, and no need to try to shift the blame for my actions onto others. And, yes, I have been on the wrong side of the mods before.

Sarcasm is not an offense that can get you in trouble if that is all that it is. But you went beyond the range of sarcasm with your post, as you did with your deletion message. The evidence given is enough to potentially get you more than just a slap on the wrist. If I were you, I would be letting the matter drop before I did something stupid and got myself banned.

To the general point: if a mod somewhere calls you a geriatric cat-raper, the mod deserves a smackdown. if that mod (or some other mods) then use their power to retaliate, the board isn't worth posting on. better to make a big stink and let other users see what kind of people they're giving power over themselves. Again, that's only as a general point. Fris didn't call anyone anything.

If you have a problem with a mod on any site, take it to an admin and pray you are on a kind site. More than one site, and some of them quite popular, describe the type of site you describe as not worth posting on, and on many of them making "a big stink" is a form of trolling and continuing to do it will get your ISP notified, and they're not going to take your word over that of a site owner. The internet is a realm of dictators, and they enjoy their power.

Nor does it come with advice that you delete it before you get your ass in trouble, and I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have said anything and should have turned you in instead and let you enjoy the results of your own actions.
Deleting a flame doesn't make the flame go away. I saw it and read it. Kinda funny, actually. In this case, being the party "insulted", I didn't feel it was actionable from the perspective of NS ToS, nor do I wish to escalate this further. I was rude, Europlex was rude back, I got over it, and I sincerely hope that s/he has by now, If not, it's time you did, Euro.
If you have a problem with a mod on any site, take it to an admin and pray you are on a kind site.
If you have a problem on this site, you can take your complaint to moderation, or escalate through two different admins. I can assure you that there are plenty of other mods who would fairly rule on the offense and hand down appropriate judgment. While I doubt that Cog or Hack would hand you my head on a platter, it's entirely probable and proper that hands would be slapped and apologies made. If that weren't the case here, I would not have accepted the job. Moderators need accountability as much or moreso than players, and this site has ample examples of the so-called "mod bias" being effectively and correctly dealt with.

Now, if we're done with this hijack, can we get back to the topic at hand?

Now, if we're done with this hijack, can we get back to the topic at hand?
Uh, don't remember what it was anymore.

I plead blondness.

Have you ever heard about emoticons: they are used to show emotions on text. like this :p.




It seems that I'm in good company, like any modern democracy, then. It seems that modern juridicial systems are based on layer of courts and, strange, there is always a final layer where appeals are impossible. Obviously the ICJ is the last layer of the juridicial system, then it's obvious that we can't have appeal. If it would be, a rogue nation continues to make appeals to create a never ending trial.

And if ICJ had not the final judgement, which will be the final layer of the system? A nation? On International questions? Are you kidding?



Strange. Control the application of the solution of this issues is not a competencec of UN bodies? Then, why do you have never said that TPP is the most bad thing that we have now on the UN? It controls the application of a specific international issue and it works form 1 year ago.



Peace on UN is based on the application of the international law. Like only a ICJ can grant.
When you build a government body with no checks & balances like you are giving the UN with this judicial system. You could forever condem a group of people for simply sticking up for ehat was right.

The "UN" should never! Ever be given the authority to make a final & unbreakable judgment upon someone. In our constution we have the constitutional right to revolt against our goverment. without any repeal process a law could be passes that conflicts with that which will then allow anyone who speaks out against a tyrannical government to be jailed of killed.

As far as our supreme court goes. Laws are constantly being repealed & contunuiously being overturned.
As I have posted earlier Nelson Mandellia for example. The president of South Africa was found guilty by his highest court in the land for speaking out against the white supremist goverment that ruled his country. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole by this biased & broken government. Without any appeal process one of the greatest diplomats I have ever heard would still be rotting in prison for his "crimes."
This is unacceptable! This is somethjing I will never support.
National mindsets change & sometimes laws that work at one time in history no longer work foir now. If these laws are not able to be overturned they can cause more problems then they can do good. Laws & courts are created to protect & serve all people.
Checks & balances are a must you will never sway me to think differently on this so give up the ship. Power corrupts & thios bill certainly creates an unbalance of power in the favor of the UN.

Deleting a flame doesn't make the flame go away. I saw it and read it. Kinda funny, actually. In this case, being the party "insulted", I didn't feel it was actionable from the perspective of NS ToS, nor do I wish to escalate this further.

You just ruined my fun of scaring the newbie :p

Now, if we're done with this hijack, can we get back to the topic at hand?

Alright. I'll try to see what new ways I can invent for beating dead horses. Wait, I think it's starting to get up...

Anyway, topic at hand:

The one lack of a balance I see is nothing preventing a certain group from manipulating the court to allow them control by simply being in multiple regions. We could have the entire court under the control of a small group and them doing with it as they please. And in 9 years, that can be quite a lot.

What does anyone think of refocusing the proposal to be RPable, rather than just a paper resolution like a Model UN?

What does anyone think of refocusing the proposal to be RPable, rather than just a paper resolution like a Model UN?

It'll amount to the same thing: Completely worthless.

Statement from the President General of Unitedia.

I feel that this proposal should be opposed, unfortunatly, due to the lack of appeal. If necessary, an appeal option should be made to another judge on the court, with a maximum of 3. However, seeing this is not a choice, we must unfortunatly decline.

Also, how will these judges be paid? After all, the UN doesn't have the fiscal reserves of large industrial nations.

And finally, how will the court make member states comply? It is highly likely that a member state, to dodge a verdict, will merely opt out of the UN. Will the UN then request the armed forces of member nations to take control?

President General Barrett
Federation of Unitedia.

But it still seems like a bad/flawed idea. Hence, we should keep voting it down.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want my citizens being tried for crimes in International courts where the customs, courtesies and laws that are the right of my citizens are undermined by a supposedly superior court. If one of my citizens mess up, we'll deal with it, not the international community.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't want my citizens being tried for crimes in International courts where the customs, courtesies and laws that are the right of my citizens are undermined by a supposedly superior court. If one of my citizens mess up, we'll deal with it, not the international community.
*sigh*

too late to do anything about it now, but this is ICJ, not ICC.

only states may be parties before the court.

i think i was the one convinced freedonia to add that line. no individuals can be tried, only nationstates.

If this resolution passes ,the UN would have to collect international tax to pay the judges, and the judges would have questionable "privileges and immunities" which would basically create a global oligarchy. Though the author does a good job of making it sound good, but if you actually read it, you will agree that this resolution should not, and cannot be passed.

by the looks, this one is sunk anyway

by the looks, this one is sunk anyway

And rightly so. It was close for a while, because there's a whole heap of blockheads who vote YES on every single proposition that comes up, but reason has won out.

And rightly so. It was close for a while, because there's a whole heap of blockheads who vote YES on every single proposition that comes up, but reason has won out.

As opposed to the "whole heap of blockheads" who vote "no"? Somehow I don't think that your insulting little implication is quite as valid as you'd like to think it is. Certainly there are people who read as far as "human rights" before voting in favor of a resolution, but I can't count the number of arguments against perfectly good resolutions that involved either national sovereignty or financial burden as the primary focus. As if the actual text of the resolutions didn't matter, it was "bad" because it either infringed on a person's government (the way the UN was designed) or caused taxes to rise (the other way the UN was designed). Personal attacks just show an inability to actually comment on the material on hand. Unfortunate, really, that one feels compelled to demonstrate that.

As opposed to the "whole heap of blockheads" who vote "no"? Somehow I don't think that your insulting little implication is quite as valid as you'd like to think it is.

Have you heard of the phenomenon of "Donkey Voting"? This happens in voting systems where you have a list of candidates and are required to place a number next to each name, in order of preference. Some voters who have no idea of what's going on just put a "1" next to the name of the first candidate, a "2" next to the next one and so on. The NSUN equivalent would be to click the first option that comes up, "Vote for". I suspect that the NSUN has maybe 500 donkey voters. You'll probably doubt there's that many, and there's no real way of knowing. I consider donkey voters to be blockheads. So what?

Certainly there are people who read as far as "human rights" before voting in favor of a resolution, but I can't count the number of arguments against perfectly good resolutions that involved either national sovereignty or financial burden as the primary focus. As if the actual text of the resolutions didn't matter, it was "bad" because it either infringed on a person's government (the way the UN was designed) or caused taxes to rise (the other way the UN was designed).

I think if someone doesn't think a proposal is good enough to merit a tax hike and an infringement on their government, then that's sufficient reason to vote 'no'. The ICJ is, however not a "not worth the hassle" proposal, but a bad proposal.

Personal attacks just show an inability to actually comment on the material on hand. Unfortunate, really, that one feels compelled to demonstrate that.

I have commented intelligently on the material at hand. I raised four points, one of which was adequately answered (by your good self). There is no need to get snippy just because I am indulging in a spot of relieved gloating. The proposal is beaten. I think this is good.

Yours sincerely,
Emperor Kano IV

I suspect that the NSUN has maybe 500 donkey voters. You'll probably doubt there's that many, and there's no real way of knowing.

And how many recent resolutions have passed within a 500-vote margin? None. Guess that settles that then.

I consider donkey voters to be blockheads. So what?

Among other reasons, I don't see the point in being uncivilized about it, especially when one can rephrase it to not constitute a broadside on just about anybody who voted for this resolution.

I raised four points, one of which was adequately answered (by your good self).

Your recent post did no such thing, and if you are referring to an earlier post, I have plenty of earlier posts addressing the merits of this resolution, including a ten-item rebuttal to the most common issues raised against the resolution. You can consider my answers "inadequate" if you'd like, but I still answered those issues earlier.

There is no need to get snippy just because I am indulging in a spot of relieved gloating.

Sorry. Immaturity bugs me.

I don't believe I ever read any such thing. Hack's new draft guidelines - and they were only drafted after this proposal was put to the vote - says no more committees, period. ICJ doesn't establish a police force or a UN army, the only things I remember as being verboten in the Enodian.

Past passed resolutions have established several subsidiary organizations. TEWC and TPP come to mind.

Passed resolutions have established several subsidiary organizations because UN leadership favors a resolution over another. Double standard. Twisting the rules. Sponsoring a resolution even it doesn't comply with the game mechanics. Corruption is inherent to UN leadership. I wouldn't wonder if corrupt leadership would take over the ICJ as well.

No, no, possibly.
Could a non-UN nation bring a complaint against you in TPP? No.
Could I bring a complaint against a non-UN nation in TPP? No.
[OOC RL Example: the Hague conventions only apply if everyone in a conflict are signatories. Wage war against a non-signatory nation, and they can't complain about you, you can't complain about them.

The same is true with the RL ICJ. It exists to mediate disputes between member nations

Was I complaining about the TPP? What are you talking about?

I will stop debating on this thread. The resolution was defeated. Yipppee!!! I congratulate every Honorable UN Delegate and Member who voted against this resolution. Our sovereignty was in danger, and we saved it.

Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

I will stop debating on this thread. The resolution was defeated. Yipppee!!! I congratulate every Honorable UN Delegate and Member who voted against this resolution. Our sovereignty was in danger, and we saved it.

Respectfully,
Chancellor Adriel Montaigne
Armed Republic of the NeoCon Hubris
Region of Conservatopia

*passes you a glass of warm salt water and a spit cup*

Now gargle and save your voice for the next time around.

A supreme court of law is a highly valid idea - when one state/country leader has committed a crime, there must be a higher body to decide upon a fitting disciplinary action for the crime. However, i believe that the "supreme" positions should be elected every 5-7 years, not 3. 3 years is too short a time for many large international trials, and the space of 5-7 yeasr means that even if the rest of the court is reelected at the end of its 9 year term, there still remain 3 influencial figures who have more experience and can help maintain a more balanced view on matters.

*realises resolution has already been defeated... feels rather stupid*

*realises resolution has already been defeated... feels rather stupid*

Don't fret it, and welcome to the UN.

And how many recent resolutions have passed within a 500-vote margin? None. Guess that settles that then.

Could conceivably happen, though. And this one looked like being close for a while, which was my point to begin with.

Among other reasons, I don't see the point in being uncivilized about it, especially when one can rephrase it to not constitute a broadside on just about anybody who voted for this resolution.

I think it's clear that I don't mean every single nation that voted for this resolution. You're trying to twist my words. Bad form. What I meant was, the donkey voters inevitably bump up the numbers of the affirmative side, making it seem like a closer contest than it really should have been.

Your recent post did no such thing, and if you are referring to an earlier post, I have plenty of earlier posts addressing the merits of this resolution, including a ten-item rebuttal to the most common issues raised against the resolution. You can consider my answers "inadequate" if you'd like, but I still answered those issues earlier.

I am referring to an earlier post. Duh. And only one of the four points I made is answered effectively by anything I have seen in the entire thread.

Sorry. Immaturity bugs me.

Unthinking morons clicking the first thing they see bugs me. Difference is me acting "immature" influences nothing, except possibly for annoying you. Which I still think is because I dare to mock a defeated proposal you backed so heavily. If a bad proposal gets voted in because of a careless click, the entire population of many nations suffers. Do you understand the distinction? I don't believe in sugarcoating, so why should I avoid using the word "blockhead" when that is what they are?

I'm not sure I should labor the point. You're obviously disappointed your pet proposal was voted down; I guess I shouldn't get too upset that you take it out on the guy who is the most obviously happy that it was.

Point is, the proposal as it stands is unacceptable to me and to the majority of the NSUN. The amendments suggested are far better, in my opinion, and ought to have a better chance of being passed. Better luck next time.

This act is a direct attack against the individual rights of individual nations! The nation should decide wether the person at trial should be put on trial no U.N. law has the right to pick people from a nation and without the concent of the nation put them on trial for laws that may be intirly dirent than the nation of the person on trial by an international court! No Andronese citizen should ever be put on trial by another court other than the Andrionese High Court.

What if someone overrules you and kills 50% of your population just for fun? Should this person be held responsible? Will he be held responsible in a tribunal that is controled by his own forces?

There could be some amendments to this law to make it better, enforcing limits on how de judges are elected so that the 'Big brother' picture you are presenting do not actually happen. I could think of some other amendments on things I do not like so much, but overall I consider it to be a positive proposition.

David,
(so called dictator of)
The Holy Empire of DarkBanana

As far as I'm concerned, with voting about to end, this resolution looks defeated.

Good thing.

As this was my first resolution put forward while I am apart of the UN, I am very pleased to be apart of this process. Civilized (mostly) debate lead to an inevitable, and most-likely, correct decision. Thanks to all those who debated on this issue and especially those who voted against it. I look forward to debating the next resolution with you all.

And so the scum of villiany that is the international court of justice has been smitten under God. Let it be known that the President extends his sincerest gratitude toward all whom came to the right decision in the process.

- Foreign Minister Kaplooey

Actually the vote is 60-40 (%), not a great majority, I suppose.

Last resolution was 75-25, I remember to you. Only a statistic.

Considering how some votes have gone, it's still good enough that we might not have to worry about another attempt passing.

*gaveling sound*
The SECRETARY-GENERAL. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the twenty-first day of March, 2005, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. International Court of Justice, proposed by Republic of Freedonia, a resolution to strongly improve worldwide human and civil rights.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: the resolution "International Court of Justice" was defeated 10,261 votes to 6,215. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

Actually the vote is 60-40 (%), not a great majority, I suppose.

Last resolution was 75-25, I remember to you. Only a statistic.

I actually think the idea had merit and certainly is what an international organization should be discussing. I'd like to ask that, like the Great Library and Prostitution debates, that all of those that feel there is potential with this idea to consider trying again ... say in June or July when we have more students on summer vacation (I'd like them to participate as well).

Goober or Freedonia,

I didn't find the time this morning to copy the text of the resolution from the game's site, but instead grabbed Freedonia's post at the top of this thread. Please let me know if that version is different *and* if you have a copy of the official text we debated. I'll be archiving this tonight, as I think it is important those of us that would like to consider reviving this idea use the records here to address some of the legitimate concerns.

Thanks,
10kMichael

Don't bring this proposal back, or we will defeat it with increasing magnitude. A minor tweaking is not enough.

Don't bring this proposal back, or we will defeat it with increasing magnitude. A minor tweaking is not enough.

Technically speaking this wasn't a "proposal" but rather a "resolution". It had over 148 Delegate endorsements.

I've not looked over the Pacifics debates, but I'd be curious to feel out support for an International Court there.

However, I completely disagree with your opinion that failed resolutions will be defeated with larger margins if re-written. This is counter (opposite) to NS UN history.

The Universal Library Coalition passed with 75% support. It was a response to the repeal of the Global Library which was repealed by a 70% margin, and the Global Library resolution itself passed by 54% margin.

The Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution is a rewrite of the failed Space Defense Initiative. Tracking passed with a 79% margin, while its predecesor failed with only 40% of the vote ... that is nearly a doubling in support!

History has shown that if you carefully listen to the sensible points raised in objection to a resolution and then address those points in a new version, that the nations of our UN are certainly open minded enough to change their mind. In fact, the success that revisited topics had in 2004 also provide a strong argument in favour of repeals in general.

I actually think the idea had merit and certainly is what an international organization should be discussing. I'd like to ask that, like the Great Library and Prostitution debates, that all of those that feel there is potential with this idea to consider trying again ... say in June or July when we have more students on summer vacation (I'd like them to participate as well).

The Venerable Libertarians agrees with the honourable member. These forums had a huge bearing on the outcome. Better luck if you resubmit an improved version.

I think the idea had some merit, but it would most likely take more than a massive rewrite to convince me that a judiciary branch to the U.N. could be pragmatic or beneficial, for all of the reasons I've previously stated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8476485&postcount=132). I don't believe we'll ever need an international court and I sincerely hope you will devote your energies to a different resolution as opposed to rewriting this one.

Well, I suppose I could do a post-mortem on this issue as well. Part of the reason this resolution failed is that there were many perceived flaws (real or otherwise, I leave the classification to the individual voter). In such a case, people opposed to a judiciary in the UN on general grounds gained traction by being able to point to specific issues in the resolution for criticism. Ultimately, I found that many of the arguments had merit, and I remained in support of the resolution.

All that said, taking away some of those points on which to criticize steals a good deal of the thunder from the "no court whatsoever" group in that they have a limited pool of critiques to make (helps me - no more ten-point rebuttals!). Also, the people who raised those objections, and now see that they've been corrected (demonstrating a willingness to compromise on key issues) are more likely to vote in favor of the modified resolution. Further, they're more likely to defend it on the forum. ULC was getting dumped on pretty bad in its thread, but the vote came out nearly four-in-five FOR the resolution.

So if the bits about elections and timing were ironed out, the bit about appeals simply stricken, and a few other minor changes made, the modified ICJ has a decent chance of passage. It's by no means guaranteed, of course, since there could be a considerable percentage of people who are totally opposed to the idea of an international court, but I can definitely see the possibility of an ICJ-like resolution passing some time over the next few months.