NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: I am new here, so dont flame if this is against something

I propose the creation of an International Supreme Court/International Court of Justice (ICJ):

SCOPE
"The ICJ shall have appellate review over the decisions of the highest court of nations, that may violate UN Resolutions" "The ICJ will also have original jurisdiction over disputes between two or more nations, and may resolve them in either Advisory Decisions or Mandamus/Authority Decisions that carry the force of law"

The court shall be comprised of seven judges, from seven different nations, to serve terms of (two months in real time), and shall be appointed by the UN.

They will review cases brought to them, and review arguments, and then will render a decision.

The court shall be comprised of seven judges, from seven different nations, to serve terms of (two months in real time), and shall be appointed by the UN.Metagaming violation.

OOC: I am new here, so dont flame if this is against something

I propose the creation of an International Supreme Court/International Court of Justice (ICJ):

SCOPE
"The ICJ shall have appellate review over the decisions of the highest court of nations, that may violate UN Resolutions" "The ICJ will also have original jurisdiction over disputes between two or more nations, and may resolve them in either Advisory Decisions or Mandamus/Authority Decisions that carry the force of law"

The court shall be comprised of seven judges, from seven different nations, to serve terms of (two months in real time), and shall be appointed by the UN.

They will review cases brought to them, and review arguments, and then will render a decision.

Out of Character (OOC):

Hi and welcome to the UN forum. :)

I have three general suggestions:

#1
I'd recommend striking the entire sentence where you reference real time, for two reasons: (1) the more generic a resolution appears, the less likely the moderators will find cause to object to it, and (2) it is a detail that we probably won't need to really have a debate on the first paragraph ... which is your main idea.

#2
Consider adding into your draft idea a preamble or justification. Tell us why (in a paragraph for now) you think the world needs an ICJ.

#3
Continue posting ideas here on this forum and also talking to your region members before finalizing anything. I like how open you are with your idea. :)

Now I have an opinion based on my roleplayed nation, which addresses your general idea.

In Character (IC):
Mikitivity welcomes the discussion of an international court to review member state compliance with UN resolutions, but feels that the rulings of such a (like UN resolutions) should be optional. This is just a matter of my government's opinion and we are very aware that some nations do not share this opinion ... specifically that they take all UN resolutions as completely binding laws.

We have observed that most nations will have very different interpretations of the intent and text of UN resolutions, and thus are concerned about how fair a ICJ compliance ruling might be. However, if the court was "optional", then its rulings would almost serve as a helpful mechanism to help nations comply (within their ability) to UN resolutions.

The danger is that some nations dislike optional rulings as much as my government appreciates them.

(OOC: I made a proposal like that, however, the mods were against it, because even if it was optional, it would still infrige on a Member State's right to interpret the resolution however they want and therefore do whatever they want. They didn't want to lose that mechanic. That may have been before they placed the invention of UN Gnomes. And maybe they changed their position.

Even if it is now legal, so what? Orignally, the Court would be staffed with real nationstates, so they would actually tell the 'optional' interpretion, but since the Court will be staffed by gnomes, we won't even know what this interpretion is.)

(Here was the proposal made by Grunberg:

International Court of Arbitration
APPLAUDING the NSUN for its resolutions,

NOTING that text of some resolutions can be vague and ill-defined, leading to disputes as to what the resolution means,

WISHING to assist in disputes of an international character between NSUN members on the meaning of resolutions:

1. ESTABLISHES an "International Court of Justice" (ICA) with the stated purpose of scrutiny of cases involving NSUN resolutions submitted to it by member states and interpreting the NSUN resolutions, to resolve disputes on what a resolution means;

2. STRESSES that the decisions of the ICA will be advisory;

3. STRONGLY ENCOURGES nations to respect the decisions of the ICA.

Submitted on behalf of SLI Sector.

Just digging for the mod thread.

EDIT 2: Ah, here it is:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453750&highlight=International+Court+Arbitration)

Any court will need a police force to enforce it's rulings and since the UN can't have that then this court can rule all it wants but have no power to enforce it findings. Heck without a police force they can't even bring in nations to stand before this court and any effort to creat such is in violation of UN rules.... Thus is a wasted effort to even consider forming something that has no ability to act to change anything.

Also even if it were legal to use Judges from seven selected nations we feel this in time would become a big problem as many nations would never have a chance to seat Judges on this court and get some things they feel need correcting before it. Also many nations don't have courts just a ruler who is Judge Jury and Hangman so how would this work with those nations.

(OOC: I made a proposal like that, however, the mods were against it, because even if it was optional, it would still infrige on a Member State's right to interpret the resolution however they want and therefore do whatever they want. They didn't want to lose that mechanic. That may have been before they placed the invention of UN Gnomes. And maybe they changed their position.

(Here was the proposal made by Grunberg:



Just digging for the mod thread.

EDIT 2: Ah, here it is:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453750&highlight=International+Court+Arbitration)

Ooooh, interesting thread. I'm surprised that one flew under the radar, as Hack's opinion that one of the few things that makes the UN interesting are resolutions filled with loopholes actually fits nicely with some of the theories people have on how "compliance" occurs (read: it is part of the picture).

It is possible that their position has changed, but they also are pretty good about sticking to old decisions as a simple matter of continuity too.

In any event, if anybody really wanted to promote an ICJ, I'd still recommend upon adding a longer preamble explaining why there is a need for such a court. The danger is that this also could really turn into a "is the UN strong or weak" sort of debate, and those never seem to change anybody's minds.

I would actually be interested in seeing someone write an ICJ where anyone who follows the Resolution and disagree with the Supreme Court of a nation can go and sue up to the ICJ, and have that ICJ pass a binding judgment on that nationstate.

Sure, I'll vote No on it for NatSov reasons. But I like to see the discussion on that.

could we do trial by combat? y'know, duels! that would be more just instead of just suing needlessly, if you aren't ready to give your life to your cause then its not worth fighting in other ways.... we'd avoid alot of unnecessary suing.

The court shall be comprised of seven judges, from seven different nations, to serve terms of (two months in real time), and shall be appointed by the UN..I would question the ability of the court to fairly gather evidence and present it in two months time... then act on what is presented thus new judges come in and have to start all over. Should there not be a clause to cover when they start a case they finish it but don't take up any new cases. Also another solution is we simply pick seven judges to sit on each case dealing with each as they come up, since we should be able to get enough to cover issues that may come up from membership. Thus judges only deal with one case at a time not several with different agendas.

I would question the ability of the court to fairly gather evidence and present it in two months time... then act on what is presented thus new judges come in and have to start all over. Should there not be a clause to cover when they start a case they finish it but don't take up any new cases. Also another solution is we simply pick seven judges to sit on each case dealing with each as they come up, since we should be able to get enough to cover issues that may come up from membership. Thus judges only deal with one case at a time not several with different agendas.

These are good points, and my government will second Cavirra's proposal to change ICJ structures to:

1) increase the maximum time to investigate claims,
2) increase the pool of justices with the organization, but limit the number of justices per case

who would investigate claims? we are not allowed to have a security or a police force.

We would offer the services of our investigators to enter other nations and investigate.