NationStates Jolt Archive

Honoured delegates,

since it seems inevitable that the excellent Common Sense Act II shall be dashed to the ground by the blunt instrument of the repeal currently in motion, we find ourselves moved to present the following proposal. Our clerks are, we regret to say, referring to it as an InstReplacement™.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

AWARE that acts of wilful stupidity are impossible to prevent,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many people seek to blame others for their failings in this regard,

CONCERNED at the frequent and frivolous use of legal action to bolster the egos of such people, both for the unnecessary use of resources of the legal system and the moral bankrupcy of the action itself,

SERIOUSLY ANNOYED at being whined at,

STRONGLY URGES member nations to amend their legal proceedings so that judges or equivalent presiding authorities may halt proceedings and dismiss as unworthy legal actions based on the blaming of others for actions of the complainant deemed by that presiding authority to be stupid, without further waste of time,

LEAVES to individual nations the definition of stupidity in these circumstances,

RECOMMANDS that national legislation leaves such definitions to the presiding authorities.

Delegates will note, we hope, that we have attempted to avoid presuming on the structure of national legal systems, and we delegate the working definition of stupidity to the relevant presiding authorities who will have a much better basis for making correct determinations on any individual case.

The biter monkeys would support this.

The only problem is that it doesn't actually DO anything. It's just like anything ever passed by the real life UN General Assembly-- a feel-good measure and nothing else.

Meh. If it takes away what few rights my people have and/or their power to replace me as their evil- I mean benevolent dictator, we would support it.
However the problem is this: What exactly constitutes a bout of stupid legal action? If the power lies with the judge, then he/she can simply say that anything brought into their courtroom is stupid legal action, and then the case would be dismissed. If it lies with the nation leader, then they could do the same thing.
But we always have to remember that our choices in these are exaggerated highly. So in that regard, if this were to come to pass, then there may as well not be a court.

Summary: I'm against this.

As this provides a much-needed discouragement of stupid lawsuits without imposing upon member states' judicial systems, Altanar would support this. To those of you complaining that it "doesn't do anything", let me ask you this: do you really want the UN to start doing things to your legal systems? We don't.

Ikir Askanabath, Acting Ambassador

I am neutral at the present moment, though open to suggestion [* stop right there, o dirty-minded ones *].

Might I be so bold as to request a little more rhetoric be deployed in arguing your case? I recommend a snifter or three of your finest falling-down water will oil your creative joints.

Benedictions,

This resolution does two things. One, it states something the UN believes to be desirable. Second it makes a strong suggestion that memeber states act accordingly. In issues as delicate as this one, namely meddling in national legal systems, we believe that this is the most sensible approach.

On a different note, resolutions that SUGGEST, ENCOURAGE, URGE, or otherwise recommend a course of action certainly have somes effect. The gnomes from the Ministry of Compliance have made this quite evident time and again.

The Logopian government agrees with the intent, spirit, and consequences this proposal would have, and we certainly cannot/will not dismiss it on the grounds that it "does nothing". We heartly support this proposal and we'll seek our region's approval once it is submitted.

Many nations will use this to define any action against (or perceived to be against) their government's authority to be a stupid case and an unnecessary use of their legal system. They will have this resolution to back them up, and I predict many bad things would arise.

Without a definition of what "stupid" really is, set out by this resolution, it is FAR too easy to use it for rather evil ends.

With a definition of what "stupid" really is, many nations will (perhaps rightfully) feel like their legal system is being undermined by the UN.

It appears to be a sticky situation that I do not currently have an answer to, but for now Roseariea and The Progressive Allied Union would have to reject this proposal if it were submitted in its current form.

Gordon Tills, acting ambassador

To those of you complaining that it "doesn't do anything", ...I feel you'll find that the best way to deal with Axis Nova is to ignore him (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444715). "But it doesn't do anything!" is the usual line of accomplished whiners who don't realize what the "Mild" strength is for.

Legislation is not an excersise of engineering. Not every word has to be defined with mathematical formality. By it's very nature the law has to leave room for interpetation.

If judges in a nation really need the word stupid to be defined for them, I would bet they have more serious problems than complying with UN legislation.

Many nations will use this to define any action against (or perceived to be against) their government's authority to be a stupid case and an unnecessary use of their legal system. They will have this resolution to back them up, and I predict many bad things would arise.

And not having this resolution would prevent despotic governments from using the legal system to their advantage?. It is not the intent of this propsal to cut the legal arsenal of abusive governments. It also fails to address air travel safety regulations. This is really no reason to dismiss it.

With a definition of what "stupid" really is, many nations will (perhaps rightfully) feel like their legal system is being undermined by the UN.

The proposal explicitly leave national governments to decide the working definition of stupidity. It also STRONGLY URGES, it does not mandate or require anything. Only the whiniest of nations would complain that this proposal undermines their legal system.

If judges in a nation really need the word stupid to be defined for them, I would bet they have more serious problems than complying with UN legislation.

It's not just that word, it's the use of the word "stupid" in conjunction with the phrase "legal action". Let's make an example: Judge K Harris (appointed by the Red Party Candidate) sees an injunction filed by Candidate Agore of the Blue Party. "I won the election here in State Swampy," cries Agore, "but these election workers are screwing with my totals. I demand a recount!"

"Hmmm," muses Judge Harris, "that sure is a stupid whiny baby of a Candidate. I believe I'll just declare this injunction 'stupid' and toss the whole thing out."

"Waaaah!" screamed the Candidate. "Feed the Judge to the alligators!" screamed millions of Blue Party members, having unjustly been denied their day in court by a capricious but entirely legal judicial fiction.

And they did. The end.That's just one quick thought, and just a wee bit plausible. I'm sure I could come up with others. Precision of language does have its place in the Rule of Law, and this proposal is horribly imprecise. It needs fixin', bad.

Let's make an example: <snip>.:eek: What a scary story! I think I'm going to have an 8-year-long nightmare!

I note that the proffered replacement to CSA2 is again directed at product liability and tort actions. Unfortunately, "stupid" legal action isn't so confined. So-called "slap suits" to shut critics up come to mind, as does a wide range of actions within the realm of family law.

Frivolous lawsuits are something that everyone thinks are easy to spot and defined the same way by all. There are a number of glaring problems here. As Fris noted, "stupid" is literally in the eye of the beholder. In addition, even the most obviously "stupid" litigation (the hot beverage case, for example) requires a full and open hearing before an accurate determination of its stupidity level can be determined. And finally, access to the courts for redress of wrong is vital to prevent the creation of a powerless underclass. Attempts to preempt that access, even if motivated by good intentions, serve to undercut the foundations of a free and egalitarian society.

We could see ourselves supporting a version of this proposal that urged fair judicial review and access, but not one, such as this, that could be so easily used to quash an individual's rights.

Judge K Harris (appointed by the Red Party Candidate) sees an injunction filed by Candidate Agore of the Blue Party. "I won the election here in State Swampy," cries Agore, "but these election workers are screwing with my totals. I demand a recount!"

"Hmmm," muses Judge Harris, "that sure is a stupid whiny baby of a Candidate. I believe I'll just declare this injunction 'stupid' and toss the whole thing out."

"Waaaah!" screamed the Candidate. "Feed the Judge to the alligators!" screamed millions of Blue Party members, having unjustly been denied their day in court by a capricious but entirely legal judicial fiction.

And they did. The end.That's just one quick thought, and just a wee bit plausible. I'm sure I could come up with others. Precision of language does have its place in the Rule of Law, and this proposal is horribly imprecise. It needs fixin', bad.

This proposal is intentionally imprecise, except in one area; it concerns blame imputed to others for the actions of the complainant. The example, horrendous as it is, concerns no action of Candidate Agore, and thus fails to fall into the sphere of this proposal. Should Judge Harris later move an action against Candidate Agore for having had his left arm and right leg eaten by alligators, another judge might decide that Judge Harris was being frivolous and stupid; might, but being either a political supporter or having the memory of snapping jaws freshly in mind, probably wouldn't.

In any case, the proposal is not making national law; such a proposal would be markedly more than mild in its strength. It is urging nations to make national law, the details of which are at their discretion. As proponents of the repeal currently at vote have noted, for the UN to attempt to define such minutiae as an exact definition of stupidity is itself stupid; such matters are best left to individual nations, or in our opinion as stated in the proposal individual judges.

Many nations will use this to define any action against (or perceived to be against) their government's authority to be a stupid case and an unnecessary use of their legal system. They will have this resolution to back them up, and I predict many bad things would arise.
This will in no way be different from the current situation. In the same way that the repeal of Common Sense Act II does not require sensible nations to repeal any current national laws, this proposal does not give nations any new powers. It merely urges them to use a tool they already possess, in circumstances that are quite clear and limited in their nature; or more likely given present UN legislation, to continue to use a tool they have been required to have.

Without a definition of what "stupid" really is, set out by this resolution, it is FAR too easy to use it for rather evil ends.
Even with precise and detailed legal definitions of all terms in use, this proposal would make no difference at all to those intent on abusing their legal system for evil ends.

With a definition of what "stupid" really is, many nations will (perhaps rightfully) feel like their legal system is being undermined by the UN.
Incorrectly in our view, but that is a separate argument. More to the point, a definition of 'stupidity' would be unlikely to be good enough to be of universal application in our opinion. We believe the term 'delegation' was invented for circumstances such as these.


Honoured ambassadors, delegates, observers and assorted riff-raff, we have been asked to hold forth on the positive reasons to back this proposal, rather than the more negative approach of pointing out the flaws in the arguments raised against it. Ambassador Gao even went so far as to suggest that a measure of alcohol bolstering of the muse of rhetoric might not be inappropriate, and we thank him for that. Our delegation has as a whole taken that suggestion to heart, or more likely merely the opportunity of getting a round in on our tab.

Our position is a simple humanitarian one. Nations join and leave this august body every day, and while many are wise and ancient sources of great benefit to our considerations, some are younger nations of great vigour but in need of guidance. Many of the latter, intent on rights or process or some other high-minded principle of considerable worth have allowed their legal systems to flourish in such a manner as to encourage individual actions.

We applaud such ideals, but they come at a price. That price is the encouragement of human selfishness; when one can sue without cost, one might as well sue without cause since it costs nothing and may yet bring gain.

This proposal stands as a beacon to nations who may not even realise the spiritual degeneration and enormous waste of legal resources that the weight of years may have pressed upon them. It offers a clear, simple and straightforward method of cutting through such waste and rebuking such avarice. True, it requires that one trust the impartiality of one's nation's system of justice, but we regard that as an essential in any case. If a nation's courts or similar institutions cannot be trusted, they are in grave need of reform in any case and far beyond the reach of simple legislation such as this.

Delegates, we ask for your approval when we formally propose this legislation. Think not of yourselves when you do so, for you have had other examples to improve the moral and legal fibre of your nations. Think instead of those who follow us, those for whom stupidity is not obvious, and those who have not had the benefit of our lives and times. Think of them, and vote to offer them one small crumb of our wisdom.

Thank you.

Those in power will often have the possibility to abuse tha privilege. Those in government or other position of political power --be them the president, monarch, senator, judges, or the members of the ruling party-- will certainly have the chance to abuse the legal system.

I really can't see how this proposal would worsen this situation. It is suggesting a change in national legal systems. It also leaves enough room for domestic legislation to handle the specific details, including precise definitions, as it best works for their particular situation. This resolution suggests the 'what' but leaves the 'how' to national governments.

Abuses such as the one presented by the Freesbiterian (I apologize if i got the term wrong) representative would not come from a deficient definition of the what, but from a poor execution of the how.

----
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The NSUN

...

This will in no way be different from the current situation.



Your speech is a convincing one, but ultimately, why endorse a proposal which if passed will leave things no differently than they are currently? My worry is that the only thing that will change is that when these rouge nations in question begin (or continue) to abuse their people they will now have a nice shiny resolution to hide behind.

Don't get me wrong, I support the ideas behind this proposal and you make many valid points. I am merely worried about practical (mis)application.

Respectfully,

-Gordon Tills, acting ambassador

IRONICALLY this proposal is pretty silly.

... it concerns blame imputed to others for the actions of the complainant.
So to go back to my political example ..."So, Candidate Agore, you're blaming your inability to get the majority of votes on the people who counted them? Inexcusably stupid. Case dismissed.Seems to me that virtually every legal case involves someone complaining about someone else, and depending on the impartiality of the courts to decide between them. This proposal hinges the entire argument on an undefined term, "stupid". Sorry, still not buying it.

For us it lacks the real and actual action clause...

So to go back to my political example ..."So, Candidate Agore, you're blaming your inability to get the majority of votes on the people who counted them? Inexcusably stupid. Case dismissed.Seems to me that virtually every legal case involves someone complaining about someone else, and depending on the impartiality of the courts to decide between them. This proposal hinges the entire argument on an undefined term, "stupid". Sorry, still not buying it.

There is still no action of Candidate Agore's at issue.

For us it lacks the real and actual action clause...

Fortunately, being of Mild strength, it need not go beyond urging action by member nations. We have already indicated why we believe stronger measures inappropriate.

With minor alterations to clarify our suggestions on some points brought out in discussion, this has been submitted for delegate consideration. Please support it (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=stupidity) if you feel it validly addresses this issue.

As the Confederation of Balranheim is a new face in the NSUN, we'd like to preface our first contribution to this (or any) discussion with an invitation to correct any misconceptions about NSUN policy that may follow. We are still cutting our teeth, so to speak.

Your speech is a convincing one, but ultimately, why endorse a proposal which if passed will leave things no differently than they are currently? My worry is that the only thing that will change is that when these rouge nations in question begin (or continue) to abuse their people they will now have a nice shiny resolution to hide behind.

It is our position that it is not only desirable but necessary that this proposal has no concrete effect in and of itself. As the NSUN's constituent nations must have free reign to conduct their matters as best serves their citizens, any proposal that would directly alter or hamper the pursuit of such service is of no use to the NationStates community. This is not to say that Balranheim endorses ineffective legislation, of course; what we do assert is that a qualitative result which encourages action but takes none in and of itself presents a far more acceptable outcome than the quantitative alternative of hard-and-fast specific legislation, at least where it applies to the current matter.

We also agree with those parties who have argued that this proposal presents no legitimacy to any government that would abuse legislation created in response to this proposal. Such abuses would fly in the face of this proposal's spirit, and as there is no self-contradiction that sets the letter of the proposal against its intent, we can only conclude that where the proposal encourages reasonable exercise of a nation's due process of law, it thereby discourages the abuse of such process or laws. Balranheim concedes that an improved draft of this proposal, stating explicitly its scorn for such abuse could be preferable for the sake of clarity. However, we see nothing inherently wrong in suggesting it implicitly as the proposal currently stands, save that an overt expression could have spared the NSUN this discussion.

We would like to thank the delegation of Balranheim for their thoughtful and lucid contribution, and welcome them to this august body. We will consider further how best to disparage abusers. We would disagree on one point, however; it seems to matter not how clearly a point is stated, someone is bound to leap into discussions declaiming that the exact opposite is what is being proposed. In short, being clear has never stopped the UN arguing over anything!