NationStates Jolt Archive

The International Court of Justice

THE UNITED NATIONS,

COMMITTED to furthering the ideals of peace and equality,

REALIZING the need for the United Nations to take a more active role in conflict prevention,

REAFFIRMING the universal right to life,

1. ESTABLISHES the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as an intermediary body under the auspices of the UN, which will be concerned with the issues of:
a) the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations,
b) the prevention of war,
c) the fair application of the laws of the UN,

2. DECREES that the ICJ shall arbitrate between any consenting states who wish to bring their grievances before the UN, regardless of ideology or past crimes,

3. FURTHER DECREES that the ICJ shall decide on the outcome of these disputes in accordance with UN law,

4. ALLOWS that in matters concerning genocide, the ICJ shall work in conjunction with The Pretenama Panel (TPP) set up in The Eon Convention on Genocide (Resolution #83),

5. STRONGLY URGES all nations to submit their grievances to the ICJ as a substitute for open conflict in the interest of world peace and security.

Category and strength?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

My idea in this resoultion is to set up the ICJ more or less as it actually is in real life. States are under no obligation to submit their international disputes to the ICJ, but it shall be there as an alternative to war for concerned nations.
It's run by the UN, so there will be no problems with objectivity, and it will dispense its verdicts based on the resolutions previously passed.

Any questions, suggestions, etc.?

Category: Political Stability (although it does not ban warfare, just provides an alternative)

Strength: significant

Category: Political Stability (although it does not ban warfare, just provides an alternative)

Strength: significant

Problem, how does this reduce political freedoms?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I was going to say that #83 is probably the closest to this draft, so you could use human rights, but I'm not convinced by that.

Maybe international security? <frowns>

This is the problem with writing proposals and then squeezing them into categories.States are under no obligation to submit their international disputes to the ICJ, but it shall be there as an alternative to war for concerned nations.I'd question the strength based on this. Significant is too strong if it's very optional.

This is the problem with writing proposals and then squeezing them into categories.


OOC: Which is why one should select the category first, then write the proposal accordingly. ;)

OOC: Which is why one should select the category first, then write the proposal accordingly. ;)

But sometimes the idea is so blindingly good, one feels the need to share it with the UN anyway, so good on Leninia for having faith in ones own proposal. Bores me senseless mind you, but each to their own *wanders off to contemplate inflatable Gandalfs.....*

*wanders off to contemplate inflatable Gandalfs.....*

OOC: That one's immortalised in my national motto. ;)

Political Stability (although it does not ban warfare, just provides an alternative)Political Stability has little, if anything, to do with warfare.

I would submit this under "The Furtherment of Democracy", as the ICJ increases the chance of a democratic, unbiased resolution to a conflict between regions/nations. I know this is a fairly loose interpretation, but outright war is undemocratic, it is decided by force (and maybe a smidge of diplomacy)...whereas the ICJ provides an unbiased way to resolve the conflict, and is a jugement voluntarily entered into hence more democratic.

This is a proposal that is somewhat difficult to pigeon hole but that is where I see it fitting.

Strength as mild may be appropriate.

Does anyone see any basic problems with the proposal itself?

Concepts such as the ICJ undermine democracy, because national sovereignties become subject to the whim of an international court. Democracy is about people voting, not nations.

How can you let some international court overrule your own supreme court, that you have just stuffed with your minions?

I note with approval your canniness in not defining the composition of the ICJ. By avoiding this issue, you have bypassed arguments about whether the ICJ bench should be one judge, a tribunal or a larger group of judges, and whether (and how) they should be elected, appointed or nominated by their profession.

I mention this because others may cite this as a problem with your proposal, Myself, I see it as a strength. The UN gives the broad policy outline, the bureaucracy (the Gnomes, I suppose) fills in the details.

Is it your intention that an ICJ should deal with matters concerning non-UN nations, if those nations consent? As currently phrased, it could, and I think that, too, is a strength.

I would suggest the inclusion of the words "conciliate and/or" before the word "arbitrate" in Clause 2, as a means of clarifying that the ICJ could ratify an agreement reached between nations, as well as being able to make a ruling should they be unablel to agree.

In response to Flibbelites' and Hack's point, I originally put this under political stability because states submitting their cases to the ICJ would basically forefeit the right to go to war over the issue, but when looking through the categories, I agree it doesn't really fit into any of them.

As for the strength, I put significant (the middle one) as it could potentially affect a large area of a government's policy, although submitting one's nation is optional. I would value Hack's opinion on the correct category.

Ardchoille noted the resolution's ambiguity concerning the ICJ judges. I did write it to be broad, as an international body such as the ICJ does have to be quite comprehensive. At the moment it is up to the UN (in their infinite wisdom) to decide on the correct format of an ICJ hearing depending on the situation.

ooc: could this be catergorized as Global Disarmament, because it urges nations to seek out peaceful means to settle dispute?

In response to Flibbelites' and Hack's point, I originally put this under political stability because states submitting their cases to the ICJ would basically forefeit the right to go to war over the issue, but when looking through the categories, I agree it doesn't really fit into any of them.

As for the strength, I put significant (the middle one) as it could potentially affect a large area of a government's policy, although submitting one's nation is optional. I would value Hack's opinion on the correct category.

While I wouldn't dare assume to speak for Hack, I have a feeling that he'll agree with your earlier assessment as to the correct category, that being "None of the above." You see, this is why it's been said many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times, "pick the category first then write the proposal."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I guess it is part of gameplay in NS.

There have been similar proposals in the last few months; I note that beyond one poster in this thread comments on this draft proposal (I acknowledge it has already been submitted as a proposal prior) have been objective. Leninia-Trotskya's proposal is well written and does not conflict (I think) with any current resolution...and if one looks at the wording of many proposals it is professional and researched, perhaps not to the level that nations/people/posters/UN afficianodoes who delve very deeply into and are concerned with the NS UN may wish - but a well written proposal with real merit.

I do believe that an "International Court of Justice" with real teeth will and could benefit this game...I am appealing to the more experienced UN members to help with this resolution.

Iain.

You know, it suddenly occurs to me that all of our categorization problems could be solved if we simply had an "other" or "miscellaneous" category.

You know, it suddenly occurs to me that all of our categorization problems could be solved if we simply had an "other" or "miscellaneous" category.

Ah yes. That would work. It would sure simplify coding too. UN Res: International Space Station. Effect: Poverty increases, Civil Freedoms drop.
UN Res: Peace Prize. Effect: Poverty increases, Civil Freedoms drop.
UN Res: Tectonic Remediation Commission. Effect: Poverty increases, Civil Freedoms drop.

... or did you think Category was just words on a page?

Problem, how does this reduce political freedoms?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If indeed participation is voluntary, then there is no reduction of political freedoms. It merely provides an alternate venue for resolving disputes.

The International Court of Justice

THE UNITED NATIONS,

COMMITTED to furthering the ideals of peace and equality,

REALIZING the need for the United Nations to take a more active role in conflict prevention,

REAFFIRMING the universal right to life,

1. ESTABLISHES the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as an intermediary body under the auspices of the UN, which will be concerned with the issues of:
a) the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations,
b) the prevention of war,
c) the fair application of the laws of the UN,

2. DECREES that the ICJ shall arbitrate between any consenting states who wish to bring their grievances before the UN, regardless of ideology or past crimes,

3. FURTHER DECREES that the ICJ shall decide on the outcome of these disputes in accordance with UN law,

4. ALLOWS that in matters concerning genocide, the ICJ shall work in conjunction with The Pretenama Panel (TPP) set up in The Eon Convention on Genocide (Resolution #83),

5. STRONGLY URGES all nations to submit their grievances to the ICJ as a substitute for open conflict in the interest of world peace and security.


Couple of comments:

Catagory: Furthement of Democracy; mild. Independent judiciary, desire for peaceful outcomes, etc all strike me as very democratic ideals, which this is clearly trying to further. Mild due to the optionality.

Remove four; house of cards problems (what if Eon convention was repealed?)

Also, it needs to do more then set up, what is in effect, a committee. I don't think just setting up a committe is even allowed nowadays, but don't quote me on this.

Altogether an intreging idea...

Remove four; house of cards problems (what if Eon convention was repealed?)


Comment on Cob's comment: The mods ruled on the appropriation of committees to do more than one thing previously; it wouldn't matter if Eon were repealed, as the Pretenama Panel would still exist.

"While I feel that this proposed resolution would be extremely beneficial, I am concerned as to how this court would be set up. My cabinet and I need to know how this will be determined. That is my only grievence with this resolution.

"I respectfully request that guidance be included to this bill as to how the court will function, and will be staffed. If agreeable, I will then pledge my vote. Until then I am staying neutral."



Submitted by
E-Rock
Lifelong President of The Confederacy of Tha RockHouse Valley.

Presented by
Keith Jordan
Official UN Ambassador of The Confederacy Tha RockHouse Valley

Comment on Cob's comment: The mods ruled on the appropriation of committees to do more than one thing previously; it wouldn't matter if Eon were repealed, as the Pretenama Panel would still exist.

Really? Well, maybe the mention of Eon should be removed, just in case, if not the Pretenama Panel...

Really? Well, maybe the mention of Eon should be removed, just in case, if not the Pretenama Panel...

We suspect that would still be safe: even if repealed, it would still remain true that the Eon Convention created the Pretenama Panel, which is all that the proposal asserts concerning it.

"While I feel that this proposed resolution would be extremely beneficial, I am concerned as to how this court would be set up.

I mentioned earler that as the resolution stands, the UN would decide on a case-by-case basis what the most appropriate setup for the court would be. This allows for more flexibility within the ICJ (for instance, a case concerning human rights violations between nations and a case involving oil drilling rights in the open sea would not necessarily be solved efficiently if both were confined to the same court setup).

I agree that this resolution would fit better under "furtherment of democracy," and so shall be submitted as such.

It would be more appropriate to use the UN Resolution number to identify the proposal- for ease of reference.

The Pretenama Panel as established by UNR# blah blah blah."

Before you submit -- alarm bell!

Previously I had actually read the proposal. However, just now I merely skimmed it as I logged in -- the way the sort of delegate who votes on titles might do -- and a phrase leapt out at me:

REAFFIRMING the universal right to life,.

Of course it makes sense in context, but you don't want idiots assuming that this is in some sneaky way a pro- or anti- abortion proposal and voting accordingly (that's what the phrase "right to life" will mean in many Australian minds, as it's the name of a vocal anti-abortion group).

I tried a few alternatives for size -- right to live undisturbed,
right to live free of armed conflict -- but they would all set off more off-topic debate than they're worth.

So, do you really need that line at all?

I'd be very wary of any possibility of 'House of Cards' being invoked. In cases like this, where there is no immediately clear category, it may be just enough to push the proposal into the 'illegal' box.

"Right to life" can be an anti-abortion or anti-death penalty slogan. Since both of those categories are blocked (by Abortion Legality Convention and Fair Sentencing Act, respectively) it's safe to assume that the UN does not believe in the "universal right to life".

Roderick Spear
Paradican Ambassador to the UN

"Right to life" can be an anti-abortion or anti-death penalty slogan. Since both of those categories are blocked (by Abortion Legality Convention and Fair Sentencing Act, respectively) it's safe to assume that the UN does not believe in the "universal right to life".

Roderick Spear
Paradican Ambassador to the UN
You underestimate the capability for annoying misreading inherent in the General Assembly. Assumption is a dangerous thing around here.

Sebatian Ennuk
Emen Un Ambassador to the UN

you don't want idiots assuming that this is in some sneaky way a pro- or anti- abortion proposal

Duly noted. Seeing that the whole point of preambulatory clauses is to clarify the resolution, I'll change it to something like,

REAFFIRMING the UN's role as an advocate for universal peace

The UN does still subscribe to that whole peace thing, right?

The UN does still subscribe to that whole peace thing, right?

I've seen no evidence of that, nor is it ensconced in international law, I don't think. Attributing noble motives to this organization may not be the best approach to getting your proposal accepted and passed.

I'd stick with the subject at hand and leave the platitudes to the greeting card manufacturers.

Duly noted. Seeing that the whole point of preambulatory clauses is to clarify the resolution, I'll change it to something like,

REAFFIRMING the UN's role as an advocate for universal peace


Rather than offer our colleagues another tempting track to amble down, wouldn't it just be easier to let the proposal speak for itself? Or, if you feel it still needs some explanation, give them something more solid to hang on to.

For example, many of our respected friends wouldn't recognise peace if it jumped up and bit them on the bum -- which wouldn't be all that peaceful -- but they're all pretty au fait with suffering.

So you might try ...The United Nations,

SEEKING to reduce the suffering of people involved in international conflict, and

BELIEVING that this can be achieved by taking a more active role in conflict prevention ...

(I'm suggesting "international" because otherwise it might seem as if you wanted the court to intervene in civil war.)

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille