NationStates Jolt Archive

This is purely an OOC thread, just for thoughts and opinions. My question of the day is one that has come up and has failed multiple times: the existance of a world, galactic, or international court.

We've all heard both sides before. On one hand it is a great idea, with roleplaying and political potential like few other organizations. On the other, we have the host of nations who won't join or simply won't follow the verdics of other nations. Also, without the involvement of certain nations that have a massive n00b following (AMF, Menel, etc...no offense meant by this), the courts of the past have failed shortly after they passed their first judgement.

Now for the moment of truth. Would anyone still be interested in such an organization, and regardless of your interest level, would you follow a verdic granted that it was reasonable and you had imput in it? Could an international system of law, an organized, documented, and fair court, far greater than any ever seen by the NationStates community, succeed or is it doomed forever to fail?

Here's my opinion.

Now you see, the only way a Court would be able to carry a decision over is through threat of war. Thus unless there is a nuke pointed at every nation in the world, and I don't think that'll work, I don't know how you can enforce them.

Then there's the "OMG INTERNAL POLICIES!!!111!" crap. A lot of people will hate the Court. So then a world war would erupt which would crumble into OOC bickering and such.

Would a I follow a verdict? Depends, if it's fair I would. If I'm about to die and it lets me live, sure. If it's for no damn reason, it's war! So this is my opinion. Good idea, but I don't see it working.

Here's my opinion.

Now you see, the only way a Court would be able to carry a decision over is through threat of war. Thus unless there is a nuke pointed at every nation in the world, and I don't think that'll work, I don't know how you can enforce them.

Then there's the "OMG INTERNAL POLICIES!!!111!" crap. A lot of people will hate the Court. So then a world war would erupt which would crumble into OOC bickering and such.

Would a I follow a verdict? Depends, if it's fair I would. If I'm about to die and it lets me live, sure. If it's for no damn reason, it's war! So this is my opinion. Good idea, but I don't see it working.

Agreed!

Here's my opinion.

Now you see, the only way a Court would be able to carry a decision over is through threat of war. Thus unless there is a nuke pointed at every nation in the world, and I don't think that'll work, I don't know how you can enforce them.

Then there's the "OMG INTERNAL POLICIES!!!111!" crap. A lot of people will hate the Court. So then a world war would erupt which would crumble into OOC bickering and such.

Would a I follow a verdict? Depends, if it's fair I would. If I'm about to die and it lets me live, sure. If it's for no damn reason, it's war! So this is my opinion. Good idea, but I don't see it working.

No. There are economic sanctions as well, not to mention public opinion on said nation who does not follow the result of the decision. If you RP in a court which you agree to, and once the verdict goes against you or your nation you simply ignore it...the respect you would lose would be trememdous.

Hating the court wouldn't lead to a world war. The members of the court would make sure of it. If the court is not affiliated with any certain nation, how could one physically fight against it?

Finally, I think that older courts failed due to corruption and stupidity. This one wouldn't pass judgements simply because it got bored or because it could. Laws would be established, and the courts would simply enforce them as cases were brought before it. It wouldn't make up law as it went. The main goal would be fairness.

No. There are economic sanctions as well, not to mention public opinion on said nation who does not follow the result of the decision. If you RP in a court which you agree to, and once the verdict goes against you or your nation you simply ignore it...the respect you would lose would be trememdous.

Hating the court wouldn't lead to a world war. The members of the court would make sure of it. If the court is not affiliated with any certain nation, how could one physically fight against it?

Finally, I think that older courts failed due to corruption and stupidity. This one wouldn't pass judgements simply because it got bored or because it could. Laws would be established, and the courts would simply enforce them as cases were brought before it. It wouldn't make up law as it went. The main goal would be fairness.

Yeah, but it would only affect nations that signed on and agreed to be bound by the decision. If "members" of the court imposed sanctions on me, I'd just go look to a nation that was not a member to get what I wanted from them and screw the economic sanctions.

My idea is to form a court with different sectors for different types of law. Running on both the personal and national level, it will be made up of judges and lawyers, each from different nations. The court would be able to solve pre-existing problems (who's at fault for what in a war, who has copyright laws on a product, who recieves the spoils after a massive victory, who is to blame for a crime against humanity, etc.) or problems created simply for the court to solve, or to test the court itself. (Two nations decide to create an international incident in a RP, roleplay the tensions, and ask the court to step it.)

It would not, however, go around telling nations or people how to live their lives or run their business. It would not impose sanctions as the United Nations does. If a nation came to the court, asking for help or assistance, then the court would look into it. It would be completely voluntary.

Yeah, but it would only affect nations that signed on and agreed to be bound by the decision. If "members" of the court imposed sanctions on me, I'd just go look to a nation that was not a member to get what I wanted from them and screw the economic sanctions.

I'm not looking to impose sanctions. Perhaps that was the wrong thing to say. I was just trying to explain that there are ways to enforce decisions other than the threat of war.

But how do you propose then to enforce decisions of the court? The court gains power from its ability to enforce a decision that it has reached. How do you enforce a decision against a country short of war, economic or political sanctions?

Here's my opinion.

Now you see, the only way a Court would be able to carry a decision over is through threat of war. Thus unless there is a nuke pointed at every nation in the world, and I don't think that'll work, I don't know how you can enforce them.

Then there's the "OMG INTERNAL POLICIES!!!111!" crap. A lot of people will hate the Court. So then a world war would erupt which would crumble into OOC bickering and such.

Would a I follow a verdict? Depends, if it's fair I would. If I'm about to die and it lets me live, sure. If it's for no damn reason, it's war! So this is my opinion. Good idea, but I don't see it working.

OOC: Nuke pointed at every nation hey, I never thought of that, "Hey Bob, how long would it take to get a nuke pointed at every nation? 15 years, what kind shitty answer is that!"

I'd go for this. All of my 'objections' and concerns are IC based so I'd enjoy having an International Court thrown into the mix.

It would be an extremely difficult task to put together a viable and respected Court but if done it would truly be one of the greatest moments in NationStates history.

Of course, one of the ways the Court will have to establish its legitimacy will be to undertake a controversal case early on in its existance (like the US Supreme Court hearing Marbury v. Madison). The first handful of cases taken to the Court will determine the entire path and future of this endeavor. If it comes out strong, it should remain kicking for months. If it fizzles right out of the gate...well, back to the drawing board.

Of course I wouldn't recognize its authority. I am against all organizations which harm my soveringty.

Of course I wouldn't recognize its authority. I am against all organizations which harm my soveringty.

Its goal would not be to "harm your sovereignty" but instead to assist you in world conflicts (economic, military, etc.) by becoming an arbitrator.

But how do you propose then to enforce decisions of the court? The court gains power from its ability to enforce a decision that it has reached. How do you enforce a decision against a country short of war, economic or political sanctions?

The decisions of the court won't need enforcing if everything goes as planned. If not, I'll think about it whenever the court creates its charter.

Here's my take on this, in reading ...

Cooperation is what's needed for anything like this to work - that's obvious. What concerns me is the whole 'sovereign rights' issues that could get called into play. This is why when Lavenrunz set up her version of such a thing, I was interested in how folks saw it playing out, and participated in the thread on it on account of those concerns.

Is Lavenrunz's court still "alive?"

THAT version turned out as something I could deal with, which was basically, acting as mediators and in situations where two mor more groups came into conflict, offering services, and then IF those involved agreed, acting as judges for the outcome where negotiations stalled or the like.

That would be my vision as well. I see the court as an arbitrator...not an alliance which creates policies and enforces sanctions. I wouldn't stand for that either.

Bear with me - still half asleep I swear, even at 1pm. I'm probably rambling again.

Anyways ... ic'ly I can guarantee the Dominion (and I know I'm not alone in this) recognizes no 'international law' or the like, and would not look kindly on anyone trying to force that sort o' bs with us. Our borders, our laws, our business - keep out unless invited sort of deal.

The court would only bring international law into play when the situation arises. If you have a conflict with another nation and you can play diplomat effectively enough...then you personally have no need for this court. However, if you were to have a conflict that you couldn't solve easily...and didn't want to be like certain people who just ignore things they can't fix...you could come to the court and have them help you and your opposition reach a conclusion.

Any such 'international court' or the like would be effective only within the boundaries of those who recognized it - as with any group. What concerns me that way I suppose is 'member' nations bringing in 'non-members' for judgement and the arguments that could come of that. In that deal of Lavenrunz's, there were provisions set up to deal with it, and it all seemed to work, but damned if it wasn't one hell of an argument getting to that point.

Naturally only those who recognize it will accept it...especially with the abundance of "ignore" throughout NationStates. Once again I am interested in contacting Lavenrunz to see how she dealt with such a situation. I have my own ideas, but I don't want to set policy all by myself. I'd rather set it with a group of others to try and avoid bias.

Then you get into the complexities of even if you're recognized, how to you enforce judgements, and how do you do it fairly and maintain impartiality? How do you keep favoritism and the toady mindset from creeping into it and creating an imbalance?

Obviously everyone with an interest in the current case would be excluded from the decisions...at least from being judges. Lawyers would be allowed to be partial to whoever they were representing...if lawyers are necessary. You keep favoritism out by making the court not a group of friends but a group of people who have a strong interest and desire in helping solve disputes. You bring in people of all different beliefs...different viewpoints. It would keep it from a liberal stance...or a conservative one...or a capitalist one...or a communist one...or etc. As for enforcing judgements, hopefully those instances would be few and far in between. It is another thing that I would hope to establish a policy for with others.

The other problem that you'll likely run into is posting and punctuality in that, just from seeing how such things have gone in the past. It's a harsh reality that not all people will be available at all times. So while dividing up duties and all looks nice and could theoretically work well, you're bound to run into 'well we're waiting for so and so to post something so ...' situations more often than not.

Well that's the nature of all internet-based games. We would both divide up duties but also divide up cases. Each case will run as an individual RP.

Now, bear in mind, none of this is meant to discourage any of this. I too think it could be a fun rp, and a fun concept to try - I'm just pointing out some of the problems that could come up with it. Folks like myself ic'ly will not react well to some outside group thinking they can dictate to us what we can and can't do. For myself, concerning trade and all, I've 2 alliances where that all goes rather well, I've got KIST which is an all trade alliance, no other nasty complications, I've got deals on the side and proper with individual nations and such and ... well, we'd not take kindly some group we're not involved with (nor indeed, ic'ly likely would be inclined to join given the intents) telling us what's what.

Once again, the intentions of the court would not be to enforce sanctions but to settle disputes of varying nature. It would not be tied in with any nation, unlike organizations like the UN. Also, while I'm not simply asking this to bribe you, would you have any interest in such an organization...now that I hopefully answered some questions you or anyone else had. You managed this long reply after all.

Anyways ... hope some of that made some sense in there somewhere. I dunno. Bottom line I suppose is do it, have fun with it, don't expect everyone to either be invovled/accepting of it or to like it even if they recognize it which could turn up some interesting rp in and of itself there, but ... yeah. I'ma stop yapping and go get lunch now. *grins*

Get lunch? I thought it was 1 pm. Geez...by 11:30 I'm normally starving...lol

The decisions of the court won't need enforcing if everything goes as planned. If not, I'll think about it whenever the court creates its charter.

Problem is, it would probably go against me more than for me. I'm no paragon of human rights and in fact am probably on many peoples' hit lists because of it.

Problem is, it would probably go against me more than for me. I'm no paragon of human rights and in fact am probably on many peoples' hit lists because of it.

This brings up an interesting issue, what law are we going to enforce with the court? The U.N. approved resolutions? The stuff we "make up" as we RP conflicts that come to the court? what?

Don't get me wrong, I kind of like the idea, I'm just thinking out loud in all my posts here about how to make it work "right."

OOC: and if it makes a difference, I'm a lawyer in RL.

Problem is, it would probably go against me more than for me. I'm no paragon of human rights and in fact am probably on many peoples' hit lists because of it.

No, because the court would uphold sovereignty for example. Besides, it would only "go against you" if there was a conflict that needed resolved. Say some nation attacked you for I don't know...abusing your minorities. The court would hopefully rule that the attacking nation had no right to involve themselves in your affairs.

This brings up an interesting issue, what law are we going to enforce with the court? The U.N. approved resolutions? The stuff we "make up" as we RP conflicts that come to the court? what?

Don't get me wrong, I kind of like the idea, I'm just thinking out loud in all my posts here about how to make it work "right."

OOC: and if it makes a difference, I'm a lawyer in RL.

Well considering that this hasn't gotten off the ground yet, we have no laws as of now. All I can say is that it won't be UN resolutions. Let that liberal hellhole (not that I mind liberals...just large masses of anyone without opposition) enforce its own law.

Our laws would be part of our charter on an off-site forum, created by the members (or senior members) of the court. Some would be established before any trial comes, but most will probably be set on precident, written as we go.

And it does make a difference in my opinion that you're a lawyer, if you truely are. (sorry...I have trouble believing shit on the internet. It's not that I don't believe you though...I'm just a skeptic.) I'm an aspiring lawyer, poli sci and finance double major in my sophomore year of college, (and you can believe what you want to with that...lol) so if you know law...I can't see how it would hurt you.

May I ask, what type of lawyer you are currently?