NationStates Jolt Archive

A U.N. Court of Justice is a crime against the rights of indpendant nations and never will a U.N. court will ever be founded in the near future. I will, unless it a very loose system, alwaya vote against a U.N. Court!
- Foreign Minister Alexi Constantin

You will still need a massive rewrite that takes into account a way to enforce the rulings while at the same time not being illegal or arguably illegal. That alone is something I do not see this overcomming.

Was I complaining about the TPP?
Yes, but nevermind.

I still feel this proposal would have passed if it had a different name.

ICJ, ICC... too similar, too tainted by association.

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.

I think it important to address those concerns, but I'd like to table that discussion for another date and honor the outcome of the vote ... for the time being that is. ;)

However, as for the need for an international court, the idea is fundamentally not that different from the way our domestic level(s) of court(s) is (are) run.

Grosseschnauzer regrets the failure of this resolution, but agrees that there was a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation attached to it, as shown in this thread.
There was a immediate political concern as well in the North Pacific, and we are of the opinion that the current Delegate feared the consequences of the adoption of the proposal. There wasn;t a lot of debate in the two North Pacific forums; the NPU forums favored the proposal, and the NPD opposed it. The Delegate cast his opposition votes two days earlier than usual.
In any event, Mikitivity knows where to find us; Grosseschnauzer too would be nterested in working on a revision of the proposal. We made a comment during the debate here that the court was really and primarily a court of arbitration for the praceful resolution of international disputes; and we received a telegram from another nation that not only liked that interpretation but stated that if we were to introduce a revision tailoring the court proposal to that end, they would support it. That may be a clue as to how a rewrite should be addressed.
Mikitivity, as an aside to you, if you check the thread at the IDU forums, you'll find that I posted the resolution text as voted on there. It's also at both of the TNP forums.

If this resolution keeps coming back, people will get tired of it. The mandate for the fundamental principle is clearly not there. And no amount of UN history will change that.

Mikitivity, as an aside to you, if you check the thread at the IDU forums, you'll find that I posted the resolution text as voted on there. It's also at both of the TNP forums.

Thanks! My government regrets that for the past few weeks that it has neglected to actively participate in the international arena.


If this resolution keeps coming back, people will get tired of it. The mandate for the fundamental principle is clearly not there. And no amount of UN history will change that.

My government disagrees. In fact, my government agrees with the YGSM position that perhaps the name of the court was what bought a number of negative votes.

History has clearly shown (and I'd challenge any nation to prove otherwise), that by addressing legitimate issues brought up in discussions and carefully rewriting a resolution to include those concerns, that it is possible to really create a widely popular resolution.

The point of the UN is to listen to the positions of other nations, and to find a compromise. I'm not suggesting that an international court be immediately pursued, but my government firmly believes that the basic need and justification behind such a court exists just the same as the need and justification for domestic judical branches does. Until this international need changes, I seriously doubt the issue itself will go away.

To quote an old Miervatian saying, "Build it, and they will come." ;)

I must disagree with everyone who thinks this has a chance of comming back. As it is, every attempt to improve upon this has run across the same problem, and that problem is one of the main things that helped sink this one. All of the solutions to that problem are either illegal, potentially illegal, or are too weak to even be worth attempting. That one problem alone is likely to sink the next attempt unless it is solved.