NationStates Jolt Archive

The Supreme Court of the Democratic Republic of United Sociologists has reviewed the current proposal for an International Court of Justice, which the DRUC has voted against, and has provided an ammended and refined proposal, which the DRUC Executive Council agrees with. We submit it now for peer review and questions.

Revised proposition for the creation of an International Court of Justice, first proposed by the Republic of Freedonia

Red: Changes
Blue: Additions
Green: Explanations, not part of the resolution

Category: Human rights
Strength: Strong

§1-Introduction
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.

ORGANIZATION

§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed of 15 independent judges, no 2 from the same state, who have shown their devotion to justice and the public welfare.

Changed from “Moral Standards” because that was too ambiguous.

2.The Court shall consist of 15 members, no 2 from the same state.
3.The members shall be held accountable to obey all laws of their home nation. In addition, a strict code of conduct will be applied to all judges imposing moral and ethical guidelines upon them.

Deals with the question of members being “above the law.”

4.The UN Subcommittee on Judicial Affairs (see below) shall select the court’s President, Vice-President and Registrar.

First of many checks and balances that the UN shall exercise over the court.

5.This resolution includes the creation of a UN Subcommittee of Judicial Affairs. Its primary function is to provide executive oversight of the ICJ and shall not exercise any powers outside of the ICJ.

The primary checks and balances system added to limit the power of the court.

§3-Mandate
1.The members shall be elected for 9 years and may be re-elected.
2.No member may exercise any political or administrative function.

§4-Requirements for becoming a UN ICJ Justice
1.Be nominated by two UN Member Nations, neither of which can be your own.
2.Undergo a strict review process by the UN Subcommittee on Judicial Affairs, which they must receive a two-third’s majority approval.

Again, an amendment made to specify how Justices will be selected.

§5-Justice Sanction and Impeachment Process
If a Justice is found guilty of a felony or equivalent crime in their home nation, or violates the UN ICJ Code of Conduct, the Justice must appear before the UN Subcommittee on Judicial Affairs for a hearing on competence to execute his position. The committee may: 1) impose appropriate sanctions, such as stripping of the title of President, VP, etc.; or 2) remove the Justice from his position.

Another checks and balances system.

COMPETENCE

§4-Jurisdiction
The court's jurisdiction comprises:
a.the interpretation of a treaty
b.any question of international law
c.the breach of an international obligation.
d.appeals for nations under UN sanction

Another checks and balances addition, this one designed to keep the UN from making unfair decisions.

e.determine what constitutes violations of UN Resolutions

Basically the same concept as the Supreme Court deciding if certain actions are unconstitutional.

f.serve as arbitrators between member nations having severe disputes.


PROCEDURE

§5-Parties
1.Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.
2.Representation for each party involved may be selected by that state.

A system designed to prevent accusations of bias.

§6-Hearing
1.The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses, experts, 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.Stringent guidelines will be in place to keep frivolous proceedings from entering the hearings.

To do away with the “time limit” on the cases.

5.When the counsel and advocates have completed their presentation of the case, the President shall declare the hearing closed.
6.The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

§7-Judgement
1.The deliberations shall take place in private, however all deliberations will recorded. Upon announcement of the verdict, deliberations shall be made public record.
2.Judgements are reached on a majority basis, and each Justice will be required to submit written documentation of the reasons for their decision to be added to the public record.

This was left unclear in the previous version.

3.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based, it shall contain the names of the judges, and read in open court.
4.Judgements will go into effect immediately. However, a lower court will be opened for hearings to review the trial should either party wish to appeal this decision.

Designed to give a fair shot at an appeal without dramatically slowing down the system and to limit the power of the court.


Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
The Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

Just an FYI: UN proposals must be 3500 characters (including spaces and line returns) or less. Anything beyond that will be truncated.

Just an FYI: UN proposals must be 3500 characters (including spaces and line returns) or less. Anything beyond that will be truncated.
Beat me to it.

The content has been edited and the proposal is now under 3500 characters when the green sections are not included. The actual proposal looks like this (this is the exact same content as the above without the notations and colors):

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

§1-Introduction
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.

ORGANIZATION
§2-Composition
1.The Court shall be composed of 15 independent judges, no 2 from the same state, who have shown their devotion to justice and the public welfare.
2.The members shall be held accountable to obey all laws of their home nation. In addition, a strict code of conduct will be applied to all judges imposing moral and ethical guidelines upon them.
3.The UN Subcommittee on Judicial Affairs (see below) shall select the court’s President, Vice-President and Registrar.
4.This resolution includes the creation of a UN Subcommittee of Judicial Affairs. Its primary function is to provide executive oversight of the ICJ and shall not exercise any powers outside of the UN ICJ.

§3-Mandate
1.The members shall be elected for 9 years and may be re-elected.
2.No member may exercise any political or administrative function.

§4-Requirements for becoming a UN ICJ Justice
1.Be nominated by two UN Member Nations, neither of which can be your own.
2.Undergo a strict review process by the UN Subcommittee on Judicial Affairs, which they must receive a two-thirds majority approval.

§5-Justice Sanction and Impeachment
If a Justice is found guilty of a felony or equivalent crime in their home nation, or violates the UN ICJ Code of Conduct, the Justice must appear before the UN Subcommittee on Judicial Affairs for a hearing on competence to execute position. The committee may: 1) impose appropriate sanctions, such as stripping of the title of President, VP, etc.; or 2) remove the Justice from his position.

COMPETENCE
§6-Jurisdiction
The court's jurisdiction comprises:
a.the interpretation of a treaty
b.any question of international law
c.the breach of an international obligation.
d.appeals for nations under UN sanction
e.determine what constitutes violations of UN Resolutions
f.serve as arbitrators between member nations having severe disputes.

PROCEDURE
§7-Parties
1.Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.
2.Representation for each party involved may be selected by that state.

§8-Hearing
1.The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by the Court of witnesses, experts, counsel, and advocates.
2.The court hearing shall be public.
3.During the hearing, relevant questions are to be put to the witnesses and experts.
4. Stringent guidelines will be in place to keep frivolous proceedings from entering the hearings.
5.When the counsel and advocates have completed their presentation of the case, the President shall declare the hearing closed.
6.The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

§9-Judgement
1.Deliberations shall take place in private, however will be recorded. Upon announcement of the verdict, deliberations shall be made public record.
2.Judgements are reached on a majority basis. Each Justice will be required to submit written documentation of the reasons for their decision to be added to the public record.
3.The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is based, contain the names of the judges and read in open court.
4.Judgements will go into effect immediately. However, a lower court will be opened for hearings to review the trial should either party wish to appeal this decision.


Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

OK, I'll propose my own changes.
Additions in blue,
Deletions in red,
Changes in green.
No explanations.


§1-Preamble
The NSUN Court of State Disputes shall be established as the principal intra-state dispute mediator 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. Judges must be citizens of a UN member, and must be nominated by another member state.
3. No two judges may be citizens of the same state.
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
The court's jurisdiction comprises:
a. arbitration between member nations having severe disputes
b. interpretation of a treaty
c. any question of international law
d. national breach of an international obligation
e. appeals for nations under UN sanction

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 by the justices 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 and shall be read in open court.
3.The judgment is final and without appeal.

Without comments, just over 2,000 characters.
Even with spaces added after periods and commas.


I - PREAMBLE

The NSUN Court of State Disputes shall be established as the principal intra-state mediator of the UN.

II - ORGANIZATION

1. The Court shall be composed by independent judges, elected from persons of recognized competence in international law.
2. Judges must be citizens of a UN member, and must be nominated by another member state.
3. No two judges may be citizens of the same state.
4. The Court shall elect its President, Vice-President and Registrar.

III - JURISDICTION

The court's jurisdiction comprises:
1. arbitration between member nations having severe disputes
2. interpretation of a treaty
3. any question of international law
4. national breach of an international obligation
5. appeals for nations under UN sanction

IV - 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.
3. 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.

V - 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 the justices put any relevant questions 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.
5. When the agents, counsel, and advocates have completed their presentation of the case, the President shall declare the hearing closed.
6. The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

VI - 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.

How long would judicial terms last? Granted, nine years is a bit excessive. Perhaps two or three? Also, where would cases be appealed (or could they be appealed)?

Other that those minor issues, I like the revised version.

I'm still opposed, but that's because I'm opposed to an international court in general and have a very large military to back it.

How long would judicial terms last? Granted, nine years is a bit excessive. Perhaps two or three? Also, where would cases be appealed (or could they be appealed)?

Other that those minor issues, I like the revised version.

I felt that 9 years was an appropriate time designation. Many people felt shorter terms were better, but on the other hand, many people felt that lifetime appointments were better. In addition to mediating between these too, I think that a judge needs to be able to serve for a long enough time that he can rule on a variety of issues which could take years to resolve.

There is a stipulation for an appeal process. Originally, this document had a description of a lower appeals court whose members were selected the same way but whose only purpose was to decide to approve an appeal and send it back to the higher court. The appeals court was another entity thato nly heard appeals and decided only whether or not to send the case back to the higher court so that the higher court wouldnt be bogged down with appeals. But I had to cut that section for length reasons. If anyone can find a way to further edit the document but keep all the content and include this section, or if we decide to cut something to add this section, we're more than happy to listen to recommendations.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

How long would judicial terms last? Granted, nine years is a bit excessive. Perhaps two or three? Also, where would cases be appealed (or could they be appealed)?

Other that those minor issues, I like the revised version.
I'm trying for a RPable court.
I'd prefer to leave implementation detail for the RP.

Maybe it would be better to have an ad-hoc set of justices.
In fact, the clause should probably be something about the justices being mutually agreeable to the parties before the court.

I don't think appeals would be feasible; the losing side in RP would always just start up another one.

e.rule on the legality of UN decisions and resolutions

This would probably count as game mechanics, assuming my reading of it is correct; once a resolution's passed it's passed, and appointed, RP-based UN bodies can't overturn it. Deciding which resolutions are legal in the light of pre-existing resolutions is the unhappy task of the mods; if they miss it before it gets beyond proposal stage, then the only thing to do is organise a repeal.

If the intended meaning was 'arbitrate on what passed UN resolutions mean, and what consists a breach of them', that should be made clearer; as it is, it looks rather like 'decide if passed UN resolutions are legal or not.'

I'm trying for a RPable court.
I'd prefer to leave implementation detail for the RP.

Maybe it would be better to have an ad-hoc set of justices.
In fact, the clause should probably be something about the justices being mutually agreeable to the parties before the court.

I don't think appeals would be feasible; the losing side in RP would always just start up another one.

Clarification accepted. It's always good to know an author's intentions early, isn't it?

Is it cheeky of us to be talking about new proposals before the voting on the current one ends?

Is it cheeky of us to be talking about new proposals before the voting on the current one ends?

Probably, but the current one's down 2000 votes and most of the Pacific delegates have voted. So it's not completely unrealistic to have people amend it and prepare for resubmission, I'd think.

the People's Dominion of Snoogit (PDS) is still opposed to any form of an International Judicial system.

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

The Court should reflect the political diversity that is the United Nations. An extremely ideologically bent region could have all of its states on the UN Court. I recommend that the limit be "1 judge from a region that has at least 15 or more states occupying it".

The Court should reflect the political diversity that is the United Nations. An extremely ideologically bent region could have all of its states on the UN Court. I recommend that the limit be "1 judge from a region that has at least 15 or more states occupying it".

I think that this would be descriminatory against small regions. However, we do feel comfortable with an ammendment saying that no two justices may come from the same region.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

This would probably count as game mechanics, assuming my reading of it is correct; once a resolution's passed it's passed, and appointed, RP-based UN bodies can't overturn it. Deciding which resolutions are legal in the light of pre-existing resolutions is the unhappy task of the mods; if they miss it before it gets beyond proposal stage, then the only thing to do is organise a repeal.

If the intended meaning was 'arbitrate on what passed UN resolutions mean, and what consists a breach of them', that should be made clearer; as it is, it looks rather like 'decide if passed UN resolutions are legal or not.'

Upon reflection, I agree. I think that the recommendation for the change in wording is acceptable. This change has been made to both versions of the above document (with minor editing for space).

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

~Says nothing about the dozens of alts currently behind spread around the regions.~

That still doesn't solve the problems of possible abuse from one side gaining control over the court...

§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 disagree with Article 9.3, that the court wouldn't hear any appeals. A nation should have the right to an appeal although it should be limited to a max of 2 times and the appeal be heard within two years of the original judgement.

-Commonwealth of Oguh

The members shall be held accountable to obey all laws of their home nation. In addition, a strict code of conduct will be applied to all judges imposing moral and ethical guidelines upon them.


The PDSRA approves on the whole, but is concerned by the phrasing "moral and ethical guidelines". We politely request clarification as to the differentiation between "moral" and "ethical" for the purpose of this act, as well as clarification as to the source of these "moral and ethical guidelines". We move that they should stem strictly from established international law, and in no case from subjective cultural moral codes.

The UN cannot support a legislation that will extend its powers through a legislation creating another governmental body.

It is prohibited to establish NSUN Security Council. Therefore it is prohibited to establish NSUN ICJ.

I have no idea how these kinds of proposal manage to slip through moderators.

This idea was supported by a mod. So that arguement won't help.

The PDSRA approves on the whole, but is concerned by the phrasing "moral and ethical guidelines". We politely request clarification as to the differentiation between "moral" and "ethical" for the purpose of this act, as well as clarification as to the source of these "moral and ethical guidelines". We move that they should stem strictly from established international law, and in no case from subjective cultural moral codes.

We agree, but this is considered a mediation. The group responsibile for outlining the guidelines in the Code of Conduct is the Committe on Judicial Affairs (also created by this proposal), and no specific idea of morality is implied.

Jon Cardin
Exectutive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

§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 disagree with Article 9.3, that the court wouldn't hear any appeals. A nation should have the right to an appeal although it should be limited to a max of 2 times and the appeal be heard within two years of the original judgement.

-Commonwealth of Oguh


This is a section from the proposal of YGSM, which we do NOT agree with and will vote against. The only sections relevent to this thread are parts of the proposal submitted by the Democratic Republic of United Sociologists.

I would request that a moderator delete the YGSM proposal from this thread, not because they shouldn't have the right to have their say, but because it is clearly causing confusion upon which proposal is being discussed here.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

YGSM, I think you mean "inter-state" not "intra-state". Inter is between, intra is within.

we still wont support this on the 'toothless-tiger' proposal. the UN has no military or police, so none of this can be enforced. and also, UN resolutions are open to individual national interpretations, and this impedes on that. the UN is a body based on co-operation, not a body to rule. an international court is one step closer to a 'federal international government'.

I'm with YGSM on the no appeals.. having said that I recognise that the current resolution does need some amendment, especially with regard to the election (and probably number) of judges. I honestly don't see why the necessity for an appeal has even become an issue.

For an appeal to be at all sensible, there needs to be a higher court in which to hear the appeal. The draft at discussion (at least initially) suggests that a lower court should be opened to 'review' the decision if one of the parties should wish to do so - presumably the losing party will always wish to appeal the decision and is given the automatic right to do so by virtue of the amended clause.

There are so many problems with this that I don't even know where to start... first of all, an appeal needs to be justified by some procedural impropriety or error in law - this clause allows a losing party a right of appeal without submitting any grounds to do so. Usually, at least one of the two courts involved needs to grant its permission to hear the appeal - this is, and rightfully so, at the complete discretion of the courts to be decided on the merits of the grounds of appeal. This amendment permits a losing party to act independently of what the court says - only a very stupid lawyer would pass on the chance of having their appeal heard when they don't actually need to have appoved any reasons they submit for wanting to have it heard.

In effect, an appeal would be heard in all cases where a losing party feels it should have won, and the losing party would be permitted to submit their case to the review of the lower court, potentially wasting valuable court resources in the process on a hopeless appeal. Also the fact that the decision will be in effect pending the hearing of the next appeal offends the fundamental principle of legal certainty - that means the sanctions of a decision will be carried out while that decision is still not final. In a civil law context, that'd be a bit like paying damages or suffering some sort of punishment when effectively no final decision imposing that sanction has been reached.

And now onto the biggest problem of all.. the fact that a lower court will hear a (potentially pointless) appeal. First of all, which court would that be? Given that the next step down the judicial ladder are the highest national courts, this poses a very significant problem - who decides which national court that should be? If it is the losing party he would presumably choose his own national court or whichever court that is most 'sympathetic' to his cause.. this state of affairs has untold potential for corruption. I thought the point of the ICJ was an impartial decision above the nation state level on matters of international affairs - how will that be accomplished by a potentially biassed national court with less jurisdictional competence than the ICJ on matters of international affairs?

Let's not confuse a right of appeal with a 'higher' degree of justice without consideration for what an appeal actually means - legal certainty and finality of decision are the only truly just, and indeed practicable options where no higher court exists. As I've said before, the buck needs to stop somewhere - what better place than something called the International Court of Justice where international affairs are concerned?

§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 disagree with Article 9.3, that the court wouldn't hear any appeals. A nation should have the right to an appeal although it should be limited to a max of 2 times and the appeal be heard within two years of the original judgement.

-Commonwealth of Oguh
I disagree with it too. That's why it was in red (deleted from the original).

YGSM, I think you mean "inter-state" not "intra-state". Inter is between, intra is within.
Right. Thanks.

This is a section from the proposal of YGSM, which we do NOT agree with and will vote against. The only sections relevent to this thread are parts of the proposal submitted by the Democratic Republic of United Sociologists.

I would request that a moderator delete the YGSM proposal from this thread, not because they shouldn't have the right to have their say, but because it is clearly causing confusion upon which proposal is being discussed here.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists
I thought this thread was to discuss and form consensus on a replacement proposal.

I think it's confusing enough to have this thread running while ICJ is still being voted on. Having multiple threads would just make it worse.

Also, I think Freedonia should have first crack at submitting whatever comes out of these discussions. I have no intention of doing this behind his back.

I am opposed to the proposal because of the last line of it: All Judgement shall be final.

There should be no such thing as a final judgement, as long as there is possible doubt............

Revision to focus this more directly on role-playing.



I - PREAMBLE

The NSUN RP Court of State Disputes shall be established as the principal inter-state mediator of the NSUN.

II - ORGANIZATION

1. The Court shall be composed by independent judges, selected by and mutually agreeable to the parties of the dispute.
2. Judges must be citizens of a NSUN member.
3. No two judges may be citizens of the same region.
4. The Court shall elect its President, Vice-President and Registrar.
5. No judge may hear more than one case at a time.

III - JURISDICTION

The court's jurisdiction comprises:
1. Arbitration between NSUN member nations having severe disputes.
2. Interpretation of a treaty between NSUN members.
3. National breach of a NSUN obligation, except where under the jurisdiction of another NSUN body.

IV - PARTIES OF THE PROCESS

1. Only UN member nationstates may be parties in cases before the Court.
2. The Court may use information relevant to cases before it from public international organizations.
3. The parties may be represented by agents, with the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court.
4. Other interested parties may submit Friend of the Court briefs.

V - 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 the justices shall put any relevant questions to the witnesses, experts, and other interested parties.
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.
5. When the agents, counsel, and advocates have completed their presentation of the case, the President shall declare the hearing closed.
6. The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

VI - 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.

I am opposed to the proposal because of the last line of it: All Judgement shall be final.

There should be no such thing as a final judgement, as long as there is possible doubt............

I seem to be on my own in waving the banner of no appeals.. but failing logic must be punished! ;) If there is no final judgement there will be no decision. If there is no decision there will be no sanctions. If there are no sanctions what is the point of even bringing the case to court?

Doubt is the reasons courts exist - they settle it. If we doubt the ability of a court to settle issues where an element of doubt as to the veracity of either side's claims is involved, we undermine the reason as to why we have judicial bodies in the first place.

I'm with YGSM on the no appeals.. having said that I recognise that the current resolution does need some amendment, especially with regard to the election (and probably number) of judges. I honestly don't see why the necessity for an appeal has even become an issue.

For an appeal to be at all sensible, there needs to be a higher court in which to hear the appeal. The draft at discussion (at least initially) suggests that a lower court should be opened to 'review' the decision if one of the parties should wish to do so - presumably the losing party will always wish to appeal the decision and is given the automatic right to do so by virtue of the amended clause.

...

As I've said before, the buck needs to stop somewhere - what better place than something called the International Court of Justice where international affairs are concerned?

Oh, finally someone that know how appeals work.

@All: a rewriting of the ICJ is a good thing and you have my approval.

Some problems that I had encounter before:

1. Elections: election of judges for now is a game mechanic violation, because you want to create a commitee on the UN. It's the reason because the original election method (vote of General Assembly) was refused by moderators. Try to ask to mods the better solution.
2. Appeals: best explication is the Mickey's one. No appeals, please!
3. Competence: remember to add precedent bodies, like TPP because in this way passed resolutions are still ok.
Other things seem nice.

About the posts like "I dislike this proposal and I will not support it", consider to contact mods in order to delete them.

I hope to have more time to aid you.

3. Competence: remember to add precedent bodies, like TPP because in this way passed resolutions are still ok.
Other things seem nice.

I hope to have more time to aid you.
I forgot to add references to passed resolutions in the preamble. Next revision.
And I'll make it more clear that TPP takes precedence for crimes defined by Eon and HI.

I don't foresee anything getting submitted in the next couple of days. We should all work on this until we get it right.

I am opposed to the proposal because of the last line of it: All Judgement shall be final.

There should be no such thing as a final judgement, as long as there is possible doubt............


Again, this is not part of the proposal submitted by United Sociologists. We do not believe it is fair to not have an appeal process and would not support a court that did not have one.

Again, this is not part of the proposal submitted by United Sociologists. We do not believe it is fair to not have an appeal process and would not support a court that did not have one.
OOC:
Hmmm. That's the difference between setting it up for RP and setting it up as a RL resolution, I guess.

I don't see the point of having resolutions that can't be RP'd - this is, after all, a RP game.

meh. even in RL, there has to be some end to trials. maybe the appeal for ICJ should be to get a UN resolution passed condemning the judgement.

Anyway, comments like Unitedia's are the price we pay for having this thread while the original ICJ proposal is still up for vote. Nothing we're discussing here includes that line.

United Sociologists' Official Statement on Appeals

We believe it is unfair to not have an appeal process. It is not the place of the United Nations to rule with an iron fist.

That being said, we are very limited by the 3500 character limit for proposals. The original version of this document stated that the appeal court's job was only to decide whether or not a new trial was warranted, not to reverse the decision of the ICJ. The stipulations were: error in the way the court procedure, legitimate allegations of bias, major new evidence, and the like. Those wishing to appeal would have to prove that there is need for a new trial. If they could prove one of these things AND there was a legitimate chance that the original decision would be overturned, the case would recieve a new hearing at the ICJ. If they could not prove the need for a new trial or if the reasons for appeal were not likely to change the verdict, then the ruling would be final.

On Enforcement
Concern is shown that the court's decisions will be uninforceable. We believe that it is the court's job to merely show or prove that violatons are taking place. In reality, the court design gives the court no power to punish whatsoever. Instead, the court's role is to either justify legitimate action against violators by the UN AND to keep the UN from taking unfair action against nations.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

meh. even in RL, there has to be some end to trials. maybe the appeal for ICJ should be to get a UN resolution passed condemning the judgement.



This is a very unique solution, and one that we find very interesting. If the majority of the population finds this solution agreeable, we would gladly accept this ammendment to the appeals process.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

I felt that 9 years was an appropriate time designation. Many people felt shorter terms were better, but on the other hand, many people felt that lifetime appointments were better. In addition to mediating between these too, I think that a judge needs to be able to serve for a long enough time that he can rule on a variety of issues which could take years to resolve.

There is a stipulation for an appeal process. Originally, this document had a description of a lower appeals court whose members were selected the same way but whose only purpose was to decide to approve an appeal and send it back to the higher court. The appeals court was another entity thato nly heard appeals and decided only whether or not to send the case back to the higher court so that the higher court wouldnt be bogged down with appeals. But I had to cut that section for length reasons. If anyone can find a way to further edit the document but keep all the content and include this section, or if we decide to cut something to add this section, we're more than happy to listen to recommendations.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists

I belive that shorter terms of 2 or 3 years are more acceptable since the members may be elected more than once. This allows members to be ejected early or be admited for life. Therefore, I think that is the best option for everyone.

Thank you,
President of The United Penguins2

United Sociologists' Official Statement on Appeals

We believe it is unfair to not have an appeal process. It is not the place of the United Nations to rule with an iron fist.

That being said, we are very limited by the 3500 character limit for proposals. The original version of this document stated that the appeal court's job was only to decide whether or not a new trial was warranted, not to reverse the decision of the ICJ. The stipulations were: error in the way the court procedure, legitimate allegations of bias, major new evidence, and the like. Those wishing to appeal would have to prove that there is need for a new trial. If they could prove one of these things AND there was a legitimate chance that the original decision would be overturned, the case would recieve a new hearing at the ICJ. If they could not prove the need for a new trial or if the reasons for appeal were not likely to change the verdict, then the ruling would be final.

On Enforcement
Concern is shown that the court's decisions will be uninforceable. We believe that it is the court's job to merely show or prove that violatons are taking place. In reality, the court design gives the court no power to punish whatsoever. Instead, the court's role is to either justify legitimate action against violators by the UN AND to keep the UN from taking unfair action against nations.

Jon Cardin
Executive Council Regent
Democratic Republic of United Sociologists


So pretty much the court acts as a mediator with no actual power to enforce, or impose it's decisssions. Although the principle in which the proposal attempts to make is a good one. It's just not realistic to beleive that some nations will bow down to decissions which can't be enforced.

The only possible only way that I can see the decissions be enforced is to impose Economic Sanctions (rather than Milatary sanctions) on the State which does not follow the courts resolutions.

The Commonwealth of Oguh commends the Democratic Republic of United Sociologists for attempting to bringing this proposal to the floor, but we will unfortunatly vote against it since there are presently no ways to enforce decissions, as well as a lack of appeals, as well as a lifetime sanction which does not take into regard time, and change in the conditions within the state.


Commonwealth of Oguh

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not support any attempt to create an International Court because we fail to see any need for one.

The only possible only way that I can see the decissions be enforced is to impose Economic Sanctions (rather than Milatary sanctions) on the State which does not follow the courts resolutions.

Which is totally worthless against those of us economically independent of the international community, and that is a surprisingly large number of nations (and, in many cases, a necessity).

So pretty much the court acts as a mediator with no actual power to enforce, or impose it's decisssions. Although the principle in which the proposal attempts to make is a good one. It's just not realistic to beleive that some nations will bow down to decissions which can't be enforced.

The only possible only way that I can see the decissions be enforced is to impose Economic Sanctions (rather than Milatary sanctions) on the State which does not follow the courts resolutions.

The Commonwealth of Oguh commends the Democratic Republic of United Sociologists for attempting to bringing this proposal to the floor, but we will unfortunatly vote against it since there are presently no ways to enforce decissions, as well as a lack of appeals, as well as a lifetime sanction which does not take into regard time, and change in the conditions within the state.


Commonwealth of Oguh

There is an appeal process. Again, the other proposal on this page not posted by United Sociologists is causing confusion. As for enforcement, we are willing to add a stipulation that upon a guilty verdict, the UN is bound to act against the violators, and the general assembly will vote on appropriate punishments. Furthermore, a guilty verdict would legitimize and individual nation should they decide to impose their own punishment, such as trade sanctions or, if necessary in that nation's eyes, war.

There is an appeal process. Again, the other proposal on this page not posted by United Sociologists is causing confusion. As for enforcement, we are willing to add a stipulation that upon a guilty verdict, the UN is bound to act against the violators, and the general assembly will vote on appropriate punishments. Furthermore, a guilty verdict would legitimize and individual nation should they decide to impose their own punishment, such as trade sanctions or, if necessary in that nation's eyes, war.

War... how? The UN has no military. Or police.

Technically it does, from donated forces by its member countries.

War... how? The UN has no military. Or police.


The individual nation would be legitimate in going to war if it was deemed necessary.

/ooc There is no stipulation for war in this game. I am aware. The UN wouldn't be the group going to war. It would be like giving tacet approval for individual nations to engage in armed conflict IF war were in the game.

There is an appeal process. Again, the other proposal on this page not posted by United Sociologists is causing confusion. As for enforcement, we are willing to add a stipulation that upon a guilty verdict, the UN is bound to act against the violators, and the general assembly will vote on appropriate punishments. Furthermore, a guilty verdict would legitimize and individual nation should they decide to impose their own punishment, such as trade sanctions or, if necessary in that nation's eyes, war.

Which means the UN will be advocating a violent solution to something, which does go against the ideals of many members. Besides, you have the problem of how to deal with nonmember nations that are, according to the rules, immune to what the UN does. This forces the UN to have a military, as it will need such to enforce its decision.

In other words, all your solution can do is take this from toothless to illegal.

Technically it does, from donated forces by its member countries.

That goes against game rules that specify otherwise.

Technically it does, from donated forces by its member countries.
That's in RL. NSUN has no military. or police.

Which means the UN will be advocating a violent solution to something, which does go against the ideals of many members. Besides, you have the problem of how to deal with nonmember nations that are, according to the rules, immune to what the UN does. This forces the UN to have a military, as it will need such to enforce its decision.

In other words, all your solution can do is take this from toothless to illegal.



That goes against game rules that specify otherwise.


See above DLE and YGSM.

OOC:

So, what does anyone think about refocusing the proposal to be RP-able?

I tire of paper resolutions that can't be implemented. This is a role playing game. If we're not going to make resolutions affect our nationstates' numbers, we should at least make the resolutions affect our play.

See above DLE and YGSM.
I understood. That's like Humanitarian Intervention allowing nationstates to invade others to stop genocide in progress, all with the NSUN's blessing.

Not to open old wounds for Loratana, but http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398091&highlight=pretenama (THIS) is an example of how quickly and how badly that was abused.

(Oh god, I'm laughing so hard re-reading that I almost can't breathe)

I need to go find an inhaler.

OOC:

So, what does anyone think about refocusing the proposal to be RP-able?

I tire of paper resolutions that can't be implemented. This is a role playing game. If we're not going to make resolutions affect our nationstates' numbers, we should at least make the resolutions affect our play.

/ooc
YGSM, we think that while valid, your proposal will not be passed as it is far too similar to the existing proposal which is going to lose severly. Instead, we would ask you and all other member nations to outline what parts of this proposal you think are not RP-able and recommend changes. But certain stipulations are not going to get by. Obviously, the no appeal process is widely opposed. Also, there are some enforcement concerns. We would like to open this forum up to allow everyone here to say what parts are un RP-able and make suggestions on repairing them while keeping in mind what people want in this proposal, such as an appeal process.

Thank you all for your constructive criticisms.

The individual nation would be legitimate in going to war if it was deemed necessary.

/ooc There is no stipulation for war in this game. I am aware. The UN wouldn't be the group going to war. It would be like giving tacet approval for individual nations to engage in armed conflict IF war were in the game.

The UN backing a military is equivolent to the UN having a military, which is illegal. And no nation needs a court to tell them they can go to war.

Still pointless, and now trying to skirt the rules.

OOC:

So, what does anyone think about refocusing the proposal to be RP-able?

I tire of paper resolutions that can't be implemented. This is a role playing game. If we're not going to make resolutions affect our nationstates' numbers, we should at least make the resolutions affect our play.

The reason why we have them like this is game rules forbids the resolutions for forcibly changing game play. Sorry, but that's simply how it is.

/ooc
YGSM, we think that while valid, your proposal will not be passed as it is far too similar to the existing proposal which is going to lose severly. Instead, we would ask you and all other member nations to outline what parts of this proposal you think are not RP-able and recommend changes. But certain stipulations are not going to get by. Obviously, the no appeal process is widely opposed. Also, there are some enforcement concerns. We would like to open this forum up to allow everyone here to say what parts are un RP-able and make suggestions on repairing them while keeping in mind what people want in this proposal, such as an appeal process.

Thank you all for your constructive criticisms.

Look, no matter how you go, this is a subject that faces opposition and will never be enforcible and legal at the same time. It sucks, but that's how it is.

Technically it does, from donated forces by its member countries.

No, the NSUN not only does not have a military, it is forbidden from having one. There is no "donation" going on.

OOC:

meh. even in RL, there has to be some end to trials. maybe the appeal for ICJ should be to get a UN resolution passed condemning the judgement.


OOC: It's a good idea, but it can't be done. According to the new rules thread, you cannot have Resolution X depend on Resolution Y; because if Y is repealed it causes all sorts of trouble.




I like this amended porposal much more than the old one. Still have concerns that there are no procedures for replacing Judges who become physically unable to do the job in the middle of their term.

Not a big fan of an International Court of Justice and would vote "No", but I could life with it if this one were voted in.

Again, the problem should be the game mechs violation. If you want to involve the General Assembly, it's a game mech violation. This was also the problem of my resolution: how make elections?

This idea was supported by a mod. So that arguement won't help.

So? Moderators can do whatever they want. If they want to twist the rules to wreak havoc in the UN they can do that. How many ridiculous resolutions have been ratified? I bet all of those were supported by moderators.

Getting back to the amended ICJ legislation, I will still oppose it. The UN is a perfect example of how people abuse their power. And since the ICJ will be a dependent judicial body to the UN, I am certain that corruption will spread in the ICJ.

One more reason to oppose this legislation: The ICJ hearings are done publicly.

If court hearings are to be done publicly, then ICJ judges would be subject to outside pressure and an almost certain biased verdict. Not good.

I've got a tranquilizer rifle, anyone got some darts?

So? Moderators can do whatever they want. If they want to twist the rules to wreak havoc in the UN they can do that. How many ridiculous resolutions have been ratified? I bet all of those were supported by moderators.

The arguement about the legality of the original is impossible due to mod backing of it.

Also, most of the rediculous resolutions were deleted by mods, except for a few serious but still rediculous resolutions that are still around.

I've got a tranquilizer rifle, anyone got some darts?

~Hands the Vastivan Delegate some darts~

I don't remember if those are the tranqs or the ones with HIV Mark III, a version combined with a flesh-eating virus. If it is the latter, they'll die a horrible, screaming death as their nerves all light up with pain from the virus eating them alive. Victims usually last 16 hours before all of the pain causes the brain's blood vessels to burst in what some assume to be a self-destruct.

The arguement about the legality of the original is impossible due to mod backing of it.

Also, most of the rediculous resolutions were deleted by mods, except for a few serious but still rediculous resolutions that are still around.

Exactly. Anything is legal as long as it has the backing of a moderator. It seems that a support from a moderator is the golden key to every ridiculous legislation. The UN is an autocratic international body with no guts to abide by the rules.

The same thing will happen with the ICJ.

Also, most of the rediculous resolutions were deleted by mods, except for a few serious but still rediculous resolutions that are still around.

Which?

Which?

The redundant health, environmental, and educational resolutions. One was recently repealed. Then there's the one about recycling that is too short to even be worthy of continuing.

Gonna have to say I'm still opposed to this. It's a conflict of interest for states to set up a court in a proposal that can just be repealed by those same states. There are 2 solutions:

1. Set up a court in some sort of international constitution.

That can't happen, we don't have that sort of power

2. Provide that this resolution can't be repealed

Umm... Right...