NationStates Jolt Archive

While I was busy telegramming delegates for my next proposal "Repeal "Fair trial"", Rubina brought to my attention something that I definitely should not have forgotten about: the existence of Resolution #47: Definition of 'Fair Trial'. Before I bring up the question, I'll paste each resolution.


Description: We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.


Description: A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003. However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is.

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:
1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:
1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.
2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.
3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.
4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.

As such: all litigants, plaintiffs, prosecutors, and varying degrees of defendants will benefit and allow for a clearer interpretation of United Nations law so that due process shall be upheld, making the legal system fairer for all people.

My question about these two resolution obviously concerns how Resolution 47 actually applies to Resolution 21. I think it can be agreed to that Resolution 47 is essentially an amendment and entirely relies upon the existence of Resolution 21, both of which are illegal. Also understood is that once a resolution passes it essentially becomes legal.

But how I'm currently interpreting the rules, Resolution 47 is "legal" insofar as that it cannot be argued as illegal as a ground for its repeal (as no resolution can). However, I am inclined to think that while the existence of Resolution 47 is "legal," its overall effect as essentially an amendment is still illegal because of the rules of proposals. I would tend to think that no matter when it was passed, amendments in the effects of resolutions are impossible, and Resolution 21 cannot be affected in any way by the text of another resolution.

Could I have some Mod-ish clarification on the relationship between these two resolutions?

were. amendments are illegal, were not. rules took effect later. im not a mod, but got into an arguement with one about the same topic.

not sure how one would be repealed and the other one stay.

actually, i like the status quo with both resolutions and so i didnt approve your proposal.

We were under the impression that resolutions as old as these were effectively grandfathered in as the submission rules were modernised; they exist, and as such are legal. Period.

Yes I understand that it is legal. I would really like to make a distinction between how I am interpreting this rule. I understand that Resolution 47 is legal in the sense that it can't be repealed for being illegal. I understand that Resolution 47, by virtue of the fact that it is a resolution, "isn't illegal." But I am unsure whether because of the OOC rules of UN Proposals, the overall effect that Resolution 47 might have over Resolution 21 is effectively null as it is impossible to amend resolutions. Resolution 47 is legal in one context, but are its intended effects legal?

It's... complicated. Kinda.

21 lays groundwork while 47 provides terms. Even if 21 was Repealed, 47 is still clear about what it is defining. In other words, if 21 was struck out, 47 would define what a Fair Trial is, but there would be nothing mandating that nations actually have such trials.

Thus, it would still be <ahem> "legal", but it would have no binding force at all. Presumably, any Repeal of it (post-removal of 21) would involve attacking it for not actually mandating that people have fair trials.

That answer your question?

Not quite. I should say that the reason behind my question is to determine whether my arguments to repeal Fair trial (which is now queued in the proposal list) still have merit in light of the existence of Resolution 47.

In my repeal, I essentially argue that Resolution 21 is flawed for failing to establish definitions or proper ingredients that would constitute the fair trials it upholds--which is technically what Resolution 47 tries to do.

I was basically asking that, even though Resolution 47 is "legal" as a NSUN Resolution, can it actually create the definition of "fair trial" in Resolution 21? Doing so would essentially amend the resolution. Does the fact that such a function in a resolution is illegal by the rules nullify its effect regardless of the fact that it was passed? Or does its passage allow it to have illegal effects in other resolutions? If the definition is not applicable, then Resolution 47 is even more worthless than Resolution 21. If its definition is applicable, then perhaps I will have to consider withdrawing my repeal.

I may be very new in this, but my guess is that 47 has come to be exactly because there was no such definition in 21. Of course, technically, amendments are impossible, but this is somewhat different; it could be argued that you can have a resolution that gives the right to a fair trial, leaving open to the member nations the option to define a fair trial, and then later you have, if you will, a standardisation of the term, which obligates all nations to give this kind of trial, in any case in which their legislation provides a fair trial to a suspect, regardless of what any international legislation says in terms of having a right to one. Personally, I would say that the present situation is acceptable; and maybe even preferable to the situation if the definition had been written in the resolution giving the right, as now there is the possibility to repeal them separately; so you could change the definition of a fair trial without having to take away the right on one, and change the right on fair trial without having to redefine it.

So, in short: the first one had nations instituting laws to give everyone fair trial, the second one had them redefine this fair trial, so, in my opinion, as both of them are binding, the definition is applicable.

In my repeal, I essentially argue that Resolution 21 is flawed for failing to establish definitions or proper ingredients that would constitute the fair trials it upholds--which is technically what Resolution 47 tries to do.I can see your quandary.

I wouldn't delete your Repeal over this. It might make your argument weak, and you'll probably have to defend against such attacks, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it illegal.

If you don't mind a non-mod comment...

I approved the repeal and had tended to assume #21 was one of the old, worthless resolutions that could be prettily easily swiped; but I'd also thought The Universal Bill of Rights contained a fair trial provision, which I now notice it doesn't (some of its clauses overlap with #47, but none actually specify 'a right to a fair trial').

So the way I would now see it: #21 grants the right to x, and #47 defines x (in this case, 'fair trial'). Although we couldn't now submit proposals that way, I don't see there's anything fundamentally flawed about the idea of past resolutions working that way: for example, Artistic Freedom, End Barbaric Punishments and Freedom of Assembly all defined rights that were somewhat nebulously granted by The Universal Bill of Rights.

Presumably, the effect of repealing #21 would be to suspend the UN-granted right of fair trial; it would still have a definition of a fair trial, but no compulsion for member nations to administer such. Thus, repealing #21 actually would remove the right to a fair trial, I think.

But a replacement could still be offered -- although under FSA it couldn't cover sentencing. It would be difficult to argue a replacement would "duplicate" or "contradict" a resolution that merely "defines" "fair trial."

I would be interested in creating such a replacement, and would also pursue the repealing of Resolution 47 as it is nothing more than a definition. All assuming this repeal passes.

I would be interested in creating such a replacement, and would also pursue the repealing of Resolution 47 as it is nothing more than a definition. All assuming this repeal passes.

what do you see wrong with the status quo, other than the two resolutions arent together? what benefit is there to doing this?

what do you see wrong with the status quo, other than the two resolutions arent together? what benefit is there to doing this?


As we of Carrionbone are new to this august body and I am newly appointed, I am still going through the old resolutions to ensure that my homeland will remain in good accord with them.

However after reading over these two resolutions I would have to agree with the our honoured colleague as the only thing I can see being done here is to waste this assembly's time in both repealing and producing a single replacement that would do exactly what these two resolutions already do. To be honest I feel that we would in essence be reinventing the wheel here and our time could be put to better use on areas that are truly lacking.

Ambassador Dalben Soonbegone of Carrionbone

Before I reconsider the appropriateness of this repeal and whether to withdraw it, because I have a feeling I'll be getting a lot of the previous two posts (and I can't say I vehemently disagree), can I get confirmation of my original concern: That Resolution 47's definition of fair trial legally applies to everything contained within Resolution 21, despite the fact that it technically acts as an amendment, an illegal effect in a resolution?

OOC: logically, this has to be the case, otherwise no resolutions involving interrelated concepts (such as, say, passports and visas) can ever work.

OOC: logically, this has to be the case, otherwise no resolutions involving interrelated concepts (such as, say, passports and visas) can ever work.

I would make a distinction between just resolutions with interrelated concepts and 21 & 47. Resolution 47 directly references Resolution 21, directly calls for editing the definition mentioned in Resolution 21, and directly legislates that Resolution 21 "shall be amended." The others would appear to have an indirect influence.

I would be interested in creating such a replacement, and would also pursue the repealing of Resolution 47 as it is nothing more than a definition. All assuming this repeal passes.Well, or you could make a new one without giving any definitions and hope that UN47 isn't Repealed. However, if you want to define "fair trail" in your new <cough> "omnibus" bill, you would need to Repeal 47.

I think many of your difficulties are coming from the fact that you're trying to shoehorn old laws into the current rules. It's far better to just follow the most logical and least complex interpretation (essentially, use Occam's Razor) and call it good. It's good enough, and is less likely to give you a headache.

what happened to this debate? i figured that a proposal in queue would be more contested, especially one like this. it seems as if it got cut off mid-debate.

im personally preparing a statement of dissent towards this proposal for the AT VOTE thread, as i dont see it as necessary, and my question of "what benefit is there to doing this?" goes unanswered.

Well, I'd hold that thought. This is an OOC legality thread: the issue is whether the repeal is legal, or legally a good idea. Whether it is substantively a good idea, and questions of policy, will, I would think, be addressed in a separate thread to avoid confusion.

given the fact that im going to be in missouri this weekend, and wont be able to so actively contest the proposal, i would like to suggest to other opponents of this resolution an anti-resolution TG campaign. unless it can be proven that this resolution does anything but destroy a functional system.

if it aint broke, dont break it!