NationStates Jolt Archive

I have three Resolution drafts, which need vetting for spelling and grammar and technical issues. Here they are:

Judicial Standards Resolution
THESE United Nations:

CALLING to mind Article 4 of the Universal Bill of Rights, which states; “All human beings are to be equal under law”.

RECOGNISING the excellent work of Member States in bringing about the practical implications of the aforementioned Article.

RESOLUTE in our intention to continue to promote and protect human rights across the globe.

DETERMINES that an effective judiciary is vital to the promotion of the values upon which the United Nations rests.

HEREBY enacts the “Judicial Standards Resolution” to these ends.

1) STATES that the judiciary of all Member States are to remain impervious to direct political pressure from the executive branch, the legislative branch, political parties, politicised NGO’s or other bodies, except through amicus curiae briefs or witness testimonial in court, in their making of judgements on cases presented to them.

2) STATES that the judiciary of the Member States are to have complete security of tenure; they may not have their pay reduced, nor be forced from office, nor be threatened directly or indirectly with physical, mental, financial or property attacks or abuse, for making rulings that contradict the political sentiment of the leadership of their country, or anything other than professional misconduct.

3) STATES that the permanent members of the judiciary of the Member States are to be professionals, appointed for their legal qualifications and expertise, rather than for political loyalties, personal friendships or membership of NGO’s or other bodies possessed of close political ties to the nominating or confirming bodies – though whether or not the existence of such ties is grounds to disqualify judicial candidates is left to Member States to decide.

4) STATES that the judiciary of the Member States should always seek to put the law above all other preferences, sentiments, ideals and other such notions in making their final judgements.

5) CREATES the Standards in Judicial Work Commission (S.J.W.C.) to oversee the enforcement of the provisions of this Resolution among Member States, and their promotion among non-Member States.

6) URGES all Member States to co-operate with the work of the S.J.W.C. and in the promotion of the values it seeks to uphold.

NOTES that the provisions of this Resolution do not extend to military tribunals, which are deemed to be the proper jurisdiction of national armed forces.

THIS being the will of these United Nations and all Member States there entailed.

Definition of Freedom of Assembly and Association Resolution
THESE United Nations:

CALLING to mind the Universal Bill of Rights, which allows for the freedom of assembly and association.

NOTING the importance of these freedoms in promoting a vibrant political, civic, social, economic and educational culture in all Member States.

HEREBY enacts the “Definition of Freedom of Assembly and Association Resolution” to these ends.

DETERMINES Freedom of Assembly to entail:

~ Freedom for any number of persons to congregate at any decent time of their choosing.
~ Freedom for the aforementioned congregation to occur on public lands, or lands where the owner has given their explicit consent for the gathering.
~ Freedom for the aforementioned congregation to peacefully protest about the issues which have caused them to assemble.
~ Freedom for the aforementioned congregation to move about through lands which are either public or whose owners have given explicit consent for their using their lands, continuing their peaceful protest in the meanwhile.

DETERMINES Freedom of Association to entail:

~ Freedom for any person or persons to join any organization whose activities do not contradict the general sentiments or common laws of the United Nations and its Member States.
~ Freedom for any person or persons to be allowed to refuse to join an organization that wishes them to enter its membership, and for this refusal to be respected by the organization and state authorities.

ENTRUSTS the policing of the enforcement of these definitions to existing Member States and United Nations bodies.

THIS being the will of these United Nations and all Member States there entailed.

Anti-Corruption Convention
THESE United Nations:

DETERMINED to fight corruption in all its forms across the NationStates World.

ACKNOWLEDGING the hard work of all Member States in fighting corruption within and outside their borders through peaceable means.

ENVISAGING a world free from corruption as the best place for future generations as yet untold to develop and grow.

HEREBY enacts the “Anti-Corruption Convention” to these ends.

1) DEFINES “corruption” as being the practice of handing any public office over to an individual because of close personal or financial ties; using financial incentives to bribe legislators, bureaucrats, members of the executive, members of the judiciary or other officials to perform tasks contrary to the law of the land, or to the law of these United Nations enshrined in the Resolutions; manipulating ballots of any kind to produce results favourable to one particular party, organization or individual; diverting public funds from their intended purposes to purposes of personal gain – either direct personal gain or gain of a body with which the person is associated and the manipulation of statistics or data of any kind to produce deliberately misleading information to be disseminated for an illegal objective.

2) DECLARES all activities in the above clause to be illegal.

3) INSTRUCTS all Member States to work to eradicate corruption in all its forms, both enumerated in this Convention and enumerated in national bodies of law, through their indigenous legal channels.

4) CREATES the United Nations Anti-Corruption Commission (U.N.A.C.C.) to co-operate international efforts to stamp out corruption, and to work on eliminating corruption through direct involvement with security forces in Member States.

5) ENUMERATES powers to close down operations deemed to be to corrupt to be salvaged, issue arrest warrants for notoriously corrupt persons in tandem with national security forces and invoke political, diplomatic and legal sanctions against Member States found to be non-compliant with U.N.A.C.C. activities to the U.N.A.C.C.

6) INSTRUCTS Member States to co-operate with the activities of the U.N.A.C.C. and provide whatever assistance they can to the activities of the Commission.

7) URGES the General Assembly to consider revision of the provisions of this Convention periodically.

8) CONDEMNS all those who participate in corruption the world over, and re-assures those who have suffered because of corruption that the United Nations and its Member States are working to relieve their suffering.

THIS being the will of these United Nations and all Member States there entailed.

Post away!

Would suggest since these are separate proposals that you submit them as such rather than all three at once in this one.


In a fast read feel that they all in some way ban some form of government of effect it in some way. Thus may be illegal since it does this.


The first one sets up a judicial system beyond the government and in some nations the ruler is judge and jury as well as ruler.

In the one on assembly you say they can go onto any public lands but don't require them to get permission or clear it with anyone but do for private lands. Thus since your courts and schools are public lands they can walk into them anytime and protest, thus disrupt the system without any recourse. Also it gives citizens an out to being required to serve in a nations military.. thus would not go over well in my nation where they must serve time in the military to learn to defend their citizenship once they get it.


The third one gets into certain trypes of government where family pass on leadership positions among their own family... thus not legal since it ends this practice in some nations.


Also since the second on Assembly why did you switch to Congregation..? This to me hints of a religious group protesting not say animals rights groups or gnome rights groups or zombie rights groups. Who assemble to protest and are not a congregation.

ooc: hahahaha! Thanks for the revision notes! I'll have a use for them in 3 hrs...
Heavy reliance on Public Law no?

ic:
If you're assuming separation of powers, what about judicial scrutiny of the Government? Are there some areas that a possibly unelected body should stay away from?

Three excellent proposals. I've no specific recommendations for improvements at present but I do have a question: what categories do you intend to submit them under?

Would suggest since these are separate proposals that you submit them as such rather than all three at once in this one.

I'm intending to do that!

The first one sets up a judicial system beyond the government and in some nations the ruler is judge and jury as well as ruler.

Perhaps a qualifying clause - NOTES that some states have a judiciary which is merged with other governmental components in the upper tiers, and does not seek to adjuicate on these matters.

In the one on assembly you say they can go onto any public lands but don't require them to get permission or clear it with anyone but do for private lands. Thus since your courts and schools are public lands they can walk into them anytime and protest, thus disrupt the system without any recourse. Also it gives citizens an out to being required to serve in a nations military.. thus would not go over well in my nation where they must serve time in the military to learn to defend their citizenship once they get it.

I'll drop that one then. Look's like its going to be to hard to word.


The third one gets into certain trypes of government where family pass on leadership positions among their own family... thus not legal since it ends this practice in some nations.

Another qualifying clause - NOTES that some nations have hereditary leadership posts, and does not seek to cover these posts.

ooc: hahahaha! Thanks for the revision notes! I'll have a use for them in 3 hrs...
Heavy reliance on Public Law no?

ic:
If you're assuming separation of powers, what about judicial scrutiny of the Government? Are there some areas that a possibly unelected body should stay away from?

I'm just aiming to set out standards for the judiciary - not governing what they can or cannot do in terms of rulings.

Three excellent proposals. I've no specific recommendations for improvements at present but I do have a question: what categories do you intend to submit them under?

Judicial Standards will be a 'The Furtherment of Democracy' Resolution.

I'm dropping the second one over issues of wording it and the fact that it could get to complex.

Anti-Corruption Convention will also be a 'The Furtherment of Democracy' Resolution.

HEREBY enacts the “Anti-Corruption Convention” to these ends.
1) DEFINES “corruption” as being the practice of handing any public office over to an individual because of close personal or financial ties; using financial incentives to bribe legislators, bureaucrats, members of the executive, members of the judiciary or other officials to perform tasks contrary to the law of the land, or to the law of these United Nations enshrined in the Resolutions; manipulating ballots of any kind to produce results favourable to one particular party, organization or individual; diverting public funds from their intended purposes to purposes of personal gain – either direct personal gain or gain of a body with which the person is associated and the manipulation of statistics or data of any kind to produce deliberately misleading information to be disseminated for an illegal objective.

2) DECLARES all activities in the above clause to be illegal.!

Thus making a Dictatorship illegal.. as well as any other form government where one person or group has total control with out citizen input into that system of government. Since one man/group rules all and grants posts to family and friends so all gain and minority loses.

NOTES that the provisions of this Resolution do not extend to military tribunals, which are deemed to be the proper jurisdiction of national armed forces.Thus all we have to do is get ridge of civilian courts and do everything under the military.. As our citizens come under our National Service which is our military forces, police forces, and trade groups. All come under on legal system.. and common laws.

Judicial Standards will be a 'The Furtherment of Democracy' Resolution.

I'm dropping the second one over issues of wording it and the fact that it could get to complex.

Anti-Corruption Convention will also be a 'The Furtherment of Democracy' Resolution.
It'd be nice to see something pass in this category. The dropped proposal is a shame but some aspects are at least somewhat covered by other resolutions, such as Freedom of Conscience (excuse the shameless trumpet-blowing).

I reckon Judicial Standards should be Mild and ACC Significant.

Thus all we have to do is get ridge of civilian courts and do everything under the military.. As our citizens come under our National Service which is our military forces, police forces, and trade groups. All come under on legal system.. and common laws.

Qualifying clause -

URGES nations to keep civilian cases in civilian courts - unless contradictory to their constitutional status at the time of the introduction of this resolution.

Thus since your courts and schools are public lands

Not necessarily: Even leaving aside the point that many schools might well be owned & run by churches, charitable trusts or private owners, there's the possibility that any government-run schools -- and courts -- will be situated on land that's technically owned by the Crown rather than by the nation as such and is only lent or leased to the government...

I'm just aiming to set out standards for the judiciary - not governing what they can or cannot do in terms of rulings.
Well I was basing it on the political independence bit. The fact that you might be letting the judiciary review legislation implies there's going to be some sort of political pressure there.1) STATES that the judiciary of all Member States are to remain impervious to direct political pressure from the executive branch, the legislative branch, political parties, politicised NGO’s or other bodies, except through amicus curiae briefs or witness testimonial in court, in their making of judgements on cases presented to them.

You're welcome to 'urge' an independant judiciary.

Not necessarily: Even leaving aside the point that many schools might well be owned & run by churches, charitable trusts or private owners, there's the possibility that any government-run schools -- and courts -- will be situated on land that's technically owned by the Crown rather than by the nation as such and is only lent or leased to the government...


Even so if the public pays taxes and they are used to lease said lands then the public is paying for them thus those lands are public so long as they are paying the lease on them. So if my government leases a section of land and building from you for say a public courthouse that what it becomes public courthouse. Same would be for a school or other office used by government to serve the public that pays taxes. It would only be private lands once it is no longer under lease by a government to be used to serve the public.

Well I was basing it on the political independence bit. The fact that you might be letting the judiciary review legislation implies there's going to be some sort of political pressure there.

You're welcome to 'urge' an independant judiciary.

Thank you - I'll change the 'States' to 'Urges' for the final draft.

Could I suggest you split one of the proposals to another thread? It's going to be really confusing otherwise.

On the proposals, we'll vehemently oppose the separation of powers one - in fact, you should check its legality - and may support the corruption one, though we have some comments to make.

Even so if the public pays taxes and they are used to lease said lands then the public is paying for them thus those lands are public so long as they are paying the lease on them. So if my government leases a section of land and building from you for say a public courthouse that what it becomes public courthouse. Same would be for a school or other office used by government to serve the public that pays taxes. It would only be private lands once it is no longer under lease by a government to be used to serve the public.

That's not how our laws define things... And note that although any buildings which the government constructs on those lands might be 'public' the draft proposal itself referred to "public lands" rather than "public buildings"...

Here is why I question getting consent only for private lands and not public lands.

Group A plans a rally/protest and gets everything in order to do this. Including getting the local people to okay date and time they hold their rally/protest on public lands. Group B hears about it is opposed to Group A so crashes the rally/protest.. Now the local people end up facing these trouble makers coming in and doing damage to all. As this says they don't need to get any consent to come onto public lands and congregate.

As who has the greater right here to use the lands? Here it's first come first serve and only if you meet the rules set by locals who maintain those public lands. This says that they don't need any consent to come on 'public lands'. As with private lands, before I give consent to you to use my land, you will know what you can and can't do on it and we will have something to make sure you pay for damages done to it by you. Otherwise no consent from me to use it will be given.