NationStates Jolt Archive

Please comment on spelling, grammar or technical issues.

- Rhomanoi

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) URGES 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) URGES 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) URGES 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) URGES 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.

7) NOTES that some states have a judiciary which is merged with other governmental components in the upper tiers, and does not seek to adjudicate on these matters.

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

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.

OOC:
Your proposal implies that there is the same separation of powers in every nation. In Darsomir, there is no centralised government, and the most powerful nobles and church leaders run their own courts and laws.
In another of my nations (which will probably re-enter the UN soon), the head of the judiciary is also one of the heads of government.

Not every nation recognises the same divisions of government.

Some parts of this may be problematical for theocracies, where the government & judiciary are drawn from the same church's hierarchy...
Some nations may have merged executive & judiciary systems at lower levels (such as the 'manorial courts' in feudal systems) too.

OOC: Given that all the clauses 'urge' rather than 'mandate', I'd say this proposal is pretty inoffensive. Mind you, the enforcement powers of the SJWC could be an issue...

I'd like to support this but I'm somewhat out of my depth, so I'll withhold judgement (ho, ho and, indeed, ho) for now.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich hangs a banner on one wall of the assembly hall:

Stop Screwing Around With National Judicial Systems

I think I am going to adopt a new policy of resolution review. My first step will be to throw it into a distiller to determine what when all is said and done the resolution is supposed to do. After reading this resolution the only thing I see in this is an enforcement of a politically independant and tenured judiciary upon every member state.

Is this an issue that crosses national borders? No.
Is this an issue of fundamental human rights? No.
Does this resolution make assumptions on a specific model of government? Yes.

So I conclude that the fundamental issue itself is, if not faltally flawed, severaly crippled. (The issue itself might be debatable. The "independent" judiciary of the United States was responsible for such great blunders as the "Dred Scott" decision and the "Roe v Wade" decision.) As a result it's going to be hard to get this type of resolution passed. Nations with radically different government models will strongly oppose it. Nations with compatable models will probably at best be indifferent.

Given that the fundamental issue is severely crippled, it's not all that badly written. The military tribunal exception is nice, most people forget such important exception clauses in resolutions like these. Since the operative clauses allcontain "URGES" the committee formed actually does nothing as "oversee the enforcement of the provisions of this Resolution" is meaningless given that you can't really enforce what you merely urge.

We agree completely with the distinguished representative of Tzorsland.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We agree completely with the distinguished representative of Tzorsland.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations


So do we.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Given this is entirely optional, we are inclined to oppose it more out of its culturally imperial tone than anything else.

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

OOC: We would like to know were one posts national constitutions at, also if there is an offical place for this to be done where folks can look at each constitution or whatever might bet written to tell what the nation is all about. As find myself lacking a formal set of laws and constitution but need to do one up and post it if it has to be done.

As believe that my nation based on fact all judges are active military officers using national laws that apply to all citizens who they apply to.. Thus there is no separation military and civilain here. All citizens have two post in life.. their so called civilain life and their duty as a citizen to defend all rights of citizenship thus military duty.

The Adollian government is firmly opposed to any and all legislation which will remove the rights of our military and civilian courts to act as they have been deemed to by the government and peoples of Adollia. Adollia will not support legislation that imposes the cultural wishes of another nation on our Republic.

The Adollian government is firmly opposed to any and all legislation which will remove the rights of our military and civilian courts to act as they have been deemed to by the government and peoples of Adollia. Adollia will not support legislation that imposes the cultural wishes of another nation on our Republic.

In doing a reread of this and after reading the above can understand Adollias concerns here.

8) URGES nations to keep civilian cases in civilian courts - unless contradictory to their constitutional status at the time of the introduction of this resolution.Nations in the process of creating a constitution even just forming there governments must now do it according to this rather than the desire of their citizenship. As we gain membership or hope to this may hinder that as many may not like it and have no say once they join on how they write certain parts of their constitution dealing with their legal system.

THIS being the will of these United Nations and all Member States there entailed.Thus making as we add nations this statement even more false than it might be the day it's passed should it be. Thus we feel as some have said that this is an issue not for UN but for individual nations.

Would suggest one to urge each nation to set up a court system treating all citizens fairly and providing them with due process in trail, not establish for them a court system based on some current system.. allow nations to learn how others conduct their courts and set the best in as their procedures at the will of the people not the will of a few UN nations who may vote for this.

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

1) URGES 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.

Agreed.

2) URGES 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.

Agreed.

3) URGES 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.

Agreed.

4) URGES 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.

This is somewhat controversial, but acceptable to us. Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Concurred.

7) NOTES that some states have a judiciary which is merged with other governmental components in the upper tiers, and does not seek to adjudicate on these matters.

Interesting point, which examples can you think of specifically? I'll reserve judgment until then on this particular clause.

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

Seconded.

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.

Agreed.

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

Unnecessary point surely?

Regardless, I can't find any reason derived from my nation's policy to oppose this, FOR.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Absolutely unacceptable. This is the basis of dictating what form of government UN member governments are allowed to have.

We will vote "No" on that basis.

We'll ask the Grand high Bahgum Mother in Law what she thinks of someone else making the laws for our nation, though we expect the answer is already known. We shall try and talk her out of visiting Rhomanoi with a couple of bricks in her handbag.......

I think I'll Play a new card.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/Lucia_Daystar/11042214786237vo.jpg

Love and esterel support this proposal as we think separation of powers is primordial.

It seems to us, that a separation of judicial and executive powers increase humans rights, as it seems to us that, in a similar way, a separation of a significant part of economic power from executive power (either for or not-for profit) increase economic development.

Yes, I think seperation is a wonderful thing myself, the only question is whose seperation will it be? The United States has a pretty much seperated system, although the upper legislature (the senate) still approves nominations for both the executive and the judical brances, and the executive proposes judical appointments. The parlimentary system basically has the legislative branch approve the executive cabinet. Then consider various divisions of the judicary from civil and criminal court systems. Finally what about multiply seperate systems such as the feudal "font" system where the lines of seperation are based on completely different notions than legislative, executive and judicial?

Yes, I think seperation is a wonderful thing myself, the only question is whose seperation will it be? The United States has a pretty much seperated system, although the upper legislature (the senate) still approves nominations for both the executive and the judical brances, and the executive proposes judical appointments. The parlimentary system basically has the legislative branch approve the executive cabinet. Then consider various divisions of the judicary from civil and criminal court systems.

You right, It seems to me that judicial power cannot be elected, because it needs "technical" knowledge and skills about justice which cannot be learned in few months, it's why in most constitutional democracies, the judicial power is proposed and approved by both executive and legislative power.


Finally what about multiply seperate systems such as the feudal "font" system where the lines of seperation are based on completely different notions than legislative, executive and judicial?

Yes, The feudad system had separation of powers by a hierarchy of regional and sub-regional powers (lord and vassals); for me, it seems similar to states and counties in US, or provinces, landers, departments, regions, cities .....
It seems to me it was only a separation by concentric sub-regional areas, but not a separation by branches.


I'm curious, please, may you or someone let me know about multiply seperate systems where the lines of seperation are based on completely different notions than legislative, executive and judicial (sub-regional ones)
thanks a lot.

I'm curious, please, may you or someone let me know about multiply seperate systems where the lines of seperation are based on completely different notions than legislative, executive and judicial (sub-regional ones)
thanks a lot.

There's a pretty good Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) article on separation of powers. You'd probably be interested in the linked articles on federalism and subsidiarity, too.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'm still trying to find a good article on feudalism as it relates to seperation of powers. While there is a lot of pages on the relation of the lord to the serf, this was not the only "government" in the feudal society. The church acted as a seperate "branch" of government. Guilds acted as another seperate branch of government. Now technically each of these branches have their own equivalent of judicial, legislative and executive, and in some cases they were the same person.

Well... by the time guilds had any real power, Feudalism was on the way out.

You right, It seems to me that judicial power cannot be elected, because it needs "technical" knowledge and skills about justice which cannot be learned in few months, it's why in most constitutional democracies, the judicial power is proposed and approved by both executive and legislative power.The solution here would be for their to be set requirements to run for this office then if they do not meet these requirements they can't run... We elect our US President with no means to determine if he is qualified or not to do the job. Most only have to be of age and a US Citizen and have support of some powerful groups. Look at the trouble here of getting the right judges on the UN Supreme Court. As it depends on who is in office as to who is first picked to go for it then they may play it along party lines in public but in private they are making deals to get things if that person is put in place. Here the people have a say in who their judges will be and a procedure to boot them out if they don't follow the laws of the people, and follow the money and power. As the people are the final power thus provide the money.


Here Judges must serve in a legal field for as long as ten years before they run for any posting as a judge. Depending on the post level this is greater and where they serve is also accounted for. A dogcather can't just walk in sign up and run for City Judge. A young person just out of school can't either. Thus their names are not placed for vote because they don't meet the basic requirements to hold that post. OH! And for some post they must reside as a legal citizen in our nation for a set number of years by the post they seek to sit in and some must even go down to being from a local area within the nation before they can run for an office in that area/city/town. So to elect them by public vote could be worked if you place requirements on who runs. Then you let the people decide who sends them to hang when they screw up.

I'm still trying to find a good article on feudalism as it relates to seperation of powers. While there is a lot of pages on the relation of the lord to the serf, this was not the only "government" in the feudal society. The church acted as a seperate "branch" of government. Guilds acted as another seperate branch of government. Now technically each of these branches have their own equivalent of judicial, legislative and executive, and in some cases they were the same person.

ooc: any of these help?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1.html
The church also had great influence in shaping feudalism; although the organization of the church was not feudal in character, its hierarchy somewhat paralleled the feudal hierarchy. The church owned much land, held by monasteries, by church dignitaries, and by the churches themselves. Most of this land, given by nobles as a bequest or gift, carried feudal obligations; thus clerical land, like lay land, assumed a feudal aspect, and the clergy became participants in the temporal feudal system. Many bishops and abbots were much like lay seigneurs. This feudal connection between church and state gave rise to the controversy over lay investiture.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=18qcgo8uhiwmo?dsid=2222&dekey=Feudal+society&sbid=lc03b&linktext=Feudal%20society (specifically Marc Bloch)

There's a pretty good Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) article on separation of powers. You'd probably be interested in the linked articles on federalism and subsidiarity, too.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thanks for the link, Ambassador Lorelei M. Ahlmann, pretty interesting