NationStates Jolt Archive

The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING the good intentions of World Assembly Resolution #3,

NOTING that the onus of "beyond all reasonable doubt" would not be a viable measure for all crimes;

FURTHER NOTING that not all transgressions require to be judged by a jury;

FURTHER NOTING that the right to question a witness must be granted on a case by case basis;

FURTHER NOTING that many nations have proven and fair justice systems that do not comply with the directives set by WA resolution #3;

DECLARES that the World Assembly Resolution #3, 'The Right to a Fair Trial', is hereby repealed and shall be considered null and void.

Click Here To View The Proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/35916/page=UN_proposal/start=23)

We urge all delegates to support this repeal proposition due to the cited reasons.


Respectfully,
Aya Shimizu
Head Ambassador for the World Assembly
Royal Council of Foreign Affairs
The Grand Principality of Bergelland

dont particularly like the wording, but what the hey, if Narnia's proposal is adoopted, better.

Not only that but it neglects systems based off religious or civil law or mixtures of Common Law and the other two already stated.

How do I go about casting my approval for this proposal?

How do I go about casting my approval for this proposal?

The first step is to become a regional delegate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The first step is to become a regional delegate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Ah. That would make sense. Thanks.

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota, having voted against the resolution that this proposal seeks to repeal, wholeheartedly supports this measure.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Grand Holy Empire of Imota

The WA is like a field covered in new snow, all bright and white and wonderful. And you want to spoil it all by pissing on the snow and marking the landscape with the ugly taint of strikeout lines. For shame!

Can we all resolve this time to only pass resolutions that are reasonable? We can leave repeals for those resolutions that are downright stupid or harmful. "The Right To A Fair Trial" is neither. It is not perfect, but neither was Narnia's proposal. Poo poo, you didn't get your favorite one in first and you want to cry.

Mind you if you want to make the WA resolution history as grafitti filled as the previous institution's was, then go ahead and be my guest.

The WA is like a field covered in new snow, all bright and white and wonderful. And you want to spoil it all by pissing on the snow and marking the landscape with the ugly taint of strikeout lines. For shame!

Can we all resolve this time to only pass resolutions that are reasonable? We can leave repeals for those resolutions that are downright stupid or harmful. "The Right To A Fair Trial" is neither. It is not perfect, but neither was Narnia's proposal. Poo poo, you didn't get your favorite one in first and you want to cry.

Mind you if you want to make the WA resolution history as grafitti filled as the previous institution's was, then go ahead and be my guest.

Firstly, there has hardly ever been a resolution passed that hasn't had at least one repeal proposed, whether it was made known in the forums or not. That's just the way it is.

Secondly, I feel Narnia's proposal was much better, particularly because it was vague enough to allow numerous interpretations without being too vague to work, and because it didn't dictate a specific trial set-up; I mean seriously, what makes a jury of at least five people any better than one with less than that? Plus, the fact that the accused can appeal their sentence/verdict at any time and for any reason is ridiculous.

I basically went through the list of proposals and gave approval to all of the repeals I saw, and I will give my support to any of them.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

I approve your repeal proposal.

Axmanland supports your efforts to repeal this unjust infantile law and i might add that this is not because i Cavour one proposal over another but i believe it is for nations themselves to decide this!!!!!

Firstly, there has hardly ever been a resolution passed that hasn't had at least one repeal proposed, whether it was made known in the forums or not. That's just the way it is.

That was the way it was; in part because a lare body of law was established before the repeal rules came into being. A lot of the body of law was written before standards were proposed. Even then there was a lot of resistance to strike down the old resolutions.

That was then, this is now. I oppose any resolution being repealed unless it is absolutely horrid. This resolution isn't horrid, it's simply not good enough in the eyes of some people. Personally I find the replacement resolution more horrid than the current one. I can live with either one and that's the point. If you can live with the existing resolution don't repeal it.

Just because people can do a thing doesn't mean a thing needs to be done. Say no to very bad resolutions and no to repeals of resolutions that are not very bad. Accept the mediocrity of the majority.

[OOC: Okay, I didn't go and give my support to every appeal, because some of the are really... bad. Just throwing that out there.]

That was the way it was; in part because a lare body of law was established before the repeal rules came into being. A lot of the body of law was written before standards were proposed. Even then there was a lot of resistance to strike down the old resolutions.

That was then, this is now. I oppose any resolution being repealed unless it is absolutely horrid. This resolution isn't horrid, it's simply not good enough in the eyes of some people. Personally I find the replacement resolution more horrid than the current one. I can live with either one and that's the point. If you can live with the existing resolution don't repeal it.

Just because people can do a thing doesn't mean a thing needs to be done. Say no to very bad resolutions and no to repeals of resolutions that are not very bad. Accept the mediocrity of the majority.

People try to repeal just about every resolution that gets passed; however, most of the time the repeals don't get that much support and eventually fizzle away.
Considering the number of people that disagreed with this resolution [on the forum, at least], the repeal might have a chance. And if it makes it to vote, then vote against it. Simple as that.

And I think this was a poor resolution that I don't want to live with; therefore, I'll be supporting the repeals.
It's my right as a WA member to esnure that I can agree with everything that gets passed. If I don't, I'll support the repeals, and if they don't get passed then I guess it's boohoo for me.

[OOC: Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. So what if people propose repeals for resolutions that have just passed? Don't support them if you don't want to, but don't accuse them of "pissing on the snow" that is the WA. The UN wasn't that pretty, and there's no guarantee that the WA will be able to rise above it.]

The government of Volzgrad strongly agrees with our allies at Bergelland. Our courts have always had their way of running things; and the "Right to a Fair Trial" resolution has caused havoc in our legal system.

People try to repeal just about every resolution that gets passed; however, most of the time the repeals don't get that much support and eventually fizzle away.
Considering the number of people that disagreed with this resolution [on the forum, at least], the repeal might have a chance. And if it makes it to vote, then vote against it. Simple as that.

And I think this was a poor resolution that I don't want to live with; therefore, I'll be supporting the repeals.
It's my right as a WA member to esnure that I can agree with everything that gets passed. If I don't, I'll support the repeals, and if they don't get passed then I guess it's boohoo for me.

[OOC: Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. So what if people propose repeals for resolutions that have just passed? Don't support them if you don't want to, but don't accuse them of "pissing on the snow" that is the WA. The UN wasn't that pretty, and there's no guarantee that the WA will be able to rise above it.]Look, I support a repeal as well, but doing it so soon will just irritate people. Narnian contacted me and asked if I would be willing to sponsor a repeal so he could get his proposal to the floor; I told him to wait at least till summer. Well, it appears he didn't like my answer and is now shopping around for another sucker (not suggesting this repeal's author had anything to do with it, just that Narnian recently announced a repeal in the "not-so-distant future").

Doing this all at once will piss people off, for multiple reasons: 1) there were plenty of players who hated the UN for proposing too many repeals, and repealing something so soon after it passes will further convince them that we're untrustworthy, and will make us look bumbling and stupid besides; 2) it will appear that Narnian's only doing this because he's upset his proposal wasn't able to be voted on. That'll only make us look petty. Not to mention, the WA just started, and we don't want to start repealing everything right after we pass it. The UN was different; we had already passed almost 250 resolutions; repealing 10 or so a year never hurt much. The WA has only passed three, and we're already pushing for repeal on our third resolution?

Wait a while, until people have forgotten this vote, then try for repeal. The ride will be smoother then. Like I said, this summer sometime.

I had the same fear that people would be irritated by seeing a repeal brought up so soon, and Omigodtheykilledkenny's confirmation of this fear has settled it. We'll wait, giving time for the simpletons of the WA to forget they even voted for this resolution, and then proceed with a repeal attempt.

Just because people can do a thing doesn't mean a thing needs to be done. Say no to very bad resolutions and no to repeals of resolutions that are not very bad. Accept the mediocrity of the majority.
We know not whether to cry or laugh hysterically.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

Well, it appears he didn't like my answer and is now shopping around for another sucker (not suggesting this repeal's author had anything to do with it, just that Narnian recently announced a repeal in the "not-so-distant future").

I'd like to politely correct you there, Kenny. I am in no way affiliated with the author of this repeal, nor am I searching anywhere for another to defeat the latest resolution. I was content with your answer, and was quite happy to wait it out. "Not-so-distant" future means whatever you want it to mean - but in my words, it indicated the time-frame you recommended. I am in complete agreement with you. Why did I request that you take up the task? Because you are well-known and well-liked here...so why would I suddenly resort to an author who is even less known than myself?

I was taken aback when I saw this thread, and somewhat irritated, given that I should have liked to control the situation a little better...especially since I'm now facing the receiving end of the accusing finger.

You will notice that yet another TWO Repeals against "The Right to A Fair Trial" has been issued - the authors being a 117-Jon, and Universal Corporations. I maintain that I have nothing to do with any of the three authors, these people are doing this of their own accord!

However, a repeal is a repeal nonetheless. Given that its received quite a bit of support so far, I will be approving Bergelland's repeal. It would be blatantly hypocritical of me not to support the very action I have been promising, even if it wasn't issued at the time I thought was ideal.

But in the future, for all those aspiring authors, please give me a bit of warning before doing such a favour.

________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

For the information of all, I am not a sucker nor a puppet. I proposed this repeal out of my own will. Frankly, if you don't support the repeal just GTFO of the damn thread instead of saying things that you don't know about other nations.

I would not have proposed the appeal if i didn't felt that it was necessary. In the forum poll it was obvious that many nations were against the resolution, so i decided to propose a repeal.

The WA is like a field covered in new snow, all bright and white and wonderful. And you want to spoil it all by pissing on the snow and marking the landscape with the ugly taint of strikeout lines. For shame!
So, you're actually saying that you would rather have a 'white and wonderful' resolution history than having good and solid resolutions on it?

there were plenty of players who hated the UN for proposing too many repeals
We couldn't care less. We personally thing that there are too many delegates in the WA, many of which don't even care about reading what they are voting for.

it will appear that Narnian's only doing this because he's upset his proposal wasn't able to be voted on.
Again, i will reiterate. We have absolutely no relation with the Narnian council. NONE.

It appalls me that the WA let such a terrible resolution (which does infringe on the right to sovereignty, altough not blatantly) remain in force for fear of 'irritating people'. What is this, high school? Are you afraid that you will not be popular anymore for helping repeal this resolution?

The government of Volzgrad strongly agrees with our allies at Bergelland. Our courts have always had their way of running things; and the "Right to a Fair Trial" resolution has caused havoc in our legal system.
Indeed, the same thing is happening in our country. The situation is such that the Princess herself decided to put all ongoing trials on hold pending the resolution of this matter.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

There is a common saying, "Good is the enemy of Best." This resolution, while not as ruinous as some that have been passed by the former NSUN, nonetheless has flaws in it. Unfortunately, these flaws cannot be amended; so long as resolutions must be accepted in toto, better legislation is forced to stay on hold until the repeal process clears away "good" to make room for "best".

We do not agree that frequent repeals are necessarily a bad thing; they're merely part of the way we do business here.

Include more detail and better wording and it's got our support.

I'd like to politely correct you there, Kenny. I am in no way affiliated with the author of this repeal, nor am I searching anywhere for another to defeat the latest resolution. I was content with your answer, and was quite happy to wait it out.I wasn't accusing you of being affiliated with this repeal attempt; I was just citing you as an example of someone who, I thought, wanted to repeal early. Apparently I misread you on that point. So take a whoops! from me. I'm happy at least you are willing to show a little restraint.

Again, i will reiterate. We have absolutely no relation with the Narnian council. NONE.Calm down, Sparky. I never accused you of that.

It appalls me that the WA let such a terrible resolution (which does infringe on the right to sovereignty, altough not blatantly) remain in force for fear of 'irritating people'. What is this, high school? Are you afraid that you will not be popular anymore for helping repeal this resolution?That's where you're mistaken. I was never popular.

My point rests on the fact that people will come to resent the WA, just as they resented the UN, if we fall back into the same old repeal-replace game. Even I think it would be excessive to suddenly repeal something in our second week of existence -- and I sponsored three UN repeals. We have a blank slate now, so let's take this unique opportunity to make strong, effective legislation our primary goal, and correcting errors a secondary priority.

I can't tell you how annoyed I was when anti-ALC nations became obsessed with repealing ALC because it blocked their own abortion resolution. This is the same situation. If people were irritated then, they'll certainly be irritated now.

So, you're actually saying that you would rather have a 'white and wonderful' resolution history than having good and solid resolutions on it?

"Good and solid?" That is never going to happen. There is an old saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Given the nature of the WA and the idiots therein the best you can hope to obtain is a state where there is nothing clearly stupid. Annoying, on the other hand is difficult to avoid, and frankly, the WA must be annoying. Yes I would like a few good and solid resolutions on it. But given the general nature of repeal and replace that's not always easy to do. Moreover it assumes the replacement resolution is "good and solid" and I strongly disagree that it is, even then there is no assurance that it would enter the queue first after the resolution is repealed.

As OMGTKK said, you need to reserve the "instarepeal" for those resolutions where people will look in their hungover state and say "OMG what have I done?" Otherwise you better have a damn good replacement which is so beloved that people will demand the repeal of the former. Moreover, you need to move the masses of the fluffies because if the resolution has a good title, the repeal is going to be a very difficult climb.

Repeals were established because of a number of reasons.

The ideas for resolutions were getting limited.
The original resolutions were written pre guidelines and really were bad.
The attitudes about certain resolutions had drastically changed over time.

It was never meant to be a method for getting around the notion that we can't edit resolutions. In addition since the repeal is milder than a resolution, the notion of resolution/repeal/resolution irks me on a stat wanking basis;

No if every resolution was good and solid, this wouldn't be NationStates. :p

yes but enough people are looking at this resolution thinking "oh my god what have we done" for this to be justified you may not regard this resolution is that bad but ALOT of people do and whether you agree or not does not negate the fact that the right to launch a repeal exists and SHOULD be used if enough people feel it is bad legislation

OoC: I have said this many times before and I will say it again: You simply cannot have an international assembly mandate a mandatory global legal system like this. There's no way that a country/nation will allow foreigners to hold trials over their criminals, and there's no way the international assembly forcing these things into effect is going to attempt to run daily court hearings over 1 million (and counting) nations. It's impractical, it's illogical, and it's just plum dumb.

Having foreigners try lawbreakers is highly unfair and unjust as there is no way for the government responsible for the criminal to protect the criminal from the biases and what have you of the foreign prosecuters. Forcing all member world nations into a single solitary form of legal system is highly unfair to the governments who must instantly reform their systems overnight.

The current resolution as-is basically allows a convicted criminal to get off with little more than a week of jail time for practically any crime as long as they feel like appealing multiple times (as they may do this as often as they like, whenever they like).

Does anyone here really believe that this resolution, passed as a "Fair Trial" resolution, is really fair to anyone, at all? Yes, it is extremely fair... to criminals... and not in the way it was intended to be. If we really want all "Fair Trial" proposals like this to constantly give criminals easy-access escape routes from prosecution, basically granting them an entire library's worth of "Get Out of Jail Free" cards, then by all means let's not repeal this resolution.

However, if everyone else here is smart enough to realise the glaring flaws in this monstrosity, then for the love of whatever you worship let's take this thing down.

As for the concept of "pissing all over the WA," I would gladly and willingly empty my bladder (and bowels if need be) all over the place if it meant a one-time repeal that destroyed this resolution. That is highly preferred over the thought of allowing Resolution #3 to perpetually piss all over the WA for the rest of eternity. The only way to stop the pissing and allow some sort of healing to the WA is to get rid of this resolution. Seriously, the first passed resolution we get (outside of Mr. Barry's and the Moderator team's) is this garbage?!

Stop passing "Fair Trial" resolutions before we pass something really stupid.

"I don't care whom this will piss off - it needs to be repealed." Captain Abagail Hardcastle said firmly "It was a poor resolution that TMZ voted against and we'de like to see it repealed."

A rather Large Squirrel stood up and said

"Это будет спам. Если вы не читаете русского и не приняли все время для того чтобы найти вне, то эт говорить, вы расточительствовало ваше время. Наилучшим образом, имейте славный день!"

then he left.

Stop passing "Fair Trial" resolutions before we pass something really stupid.

*coughMaxBarryDaycough*

I will continue to support the more worthy attempts to repeal the resolution until one of them passes.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

The people of my country were all gung-ho about passing Resolution #3 until some of our politions began to debate against Articles 6 and 7. These articles extend authority to the defendant and not to his or her representative to question witnesses and appeal a sentence or verdict.

We recognize that this resolution passed only because of its good intention.

yes but enough people are looking at this resolution thinking "oh my god what have we done" for this to be justified you may not regard this resolution is that bad but ALOT of people do and whether you agree or not does not negate the fact that the right to launch a repeal exists and SHOULD be used if enough people feel it is bad legislation
Maybe now they'll learn to read the whole text instead of just the title.

The Popotan has, and will continue to support, a repeal as this resolution is poorly written in parts and amounts to cultural imperialism in others.

*Following WA resolution #3*
David Hagger had the most expedient trial in the history of the Kingdom today when new legislation from the World Assembly was finally implemented. The trial ended in twenty four minutes- just six minutes under the maximum in SNOCOUNTY. Despite the King's opposition to resolution #3 he gave authority to his Vassal's to see to it's implementation in a manner that would protect the people from undue taxation.

The WA measure "The Right to a Fair Trial" is an excellent measure to protect the right of defendants against rouge prosecutors and false accusations. So I will vote against the measure.

Maybe now they'll learn to read the whole text instead of just the title.

Pfft, yeah right.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Pfft, yeah right.

OOC: Aye. "Whatever sounds good"…all throughout history….when the hell are we going to learn from this?

I will continue to support the more worthy attempts to repeal the resolution until one of them passes.

Well, unfortunately it seems this one has failed to reach quorum, and just about every other of these repeals isn't backed by sufficient promotion. I'm going to wait this out for a while.

________________


CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The WA measure "The Right to a Fair Trial" is an excellent measure to protect the right of defendants against rouge prosecutors and false accusations. So I will vote against the measure.
From the long-infamous "rouge nations", I presume? :D

I raised this concern, as well. In Rotovia's case, citizens no longer have the option of seeking a Jury of Learned Peers (assembled from impartial barristers) and would even compel the hearing of minor offences before A jury, a needlessly costly and inefficient system.

would even compel the hearing of minor offences before A jury, a needlessly costly and inefficient system.There is nothing preventing you from allowing you to allow in you to have the option of having just a judge decide the case only if all parties involved agreed to it.

As regional delegate of Fidelia, I have approved this proposal, with anxious hopes that it makes it to vote.

Signed,
Princess Coldheart

As regional delegate of Fidelia, I have approved this proposal, with anxious hopes that it makes it to vote.

Signed,
Princess Coldheart

I'm pretty sure it had alreay made it to the vote. The newly independent kindom of bardar voted against it, as it indeed suggested an end to our independent and sovereign legal system. The Kingdom of Bardar is considering withdrawing from the World Assembly.

I'm pretty sure it had alreay made it to the vote. The newly independent kindom of bardar voted against it, as it indeed suggested an end to our independent and sovereign legal system. The Kingdom of Bardar is considering withdrawing from the World Assembly.

I understand that the original "Right to a Fair Trial" went to vote. I have approved the repeal, with hopes that it will make it to vote.