Gruenberg
13-11-2005, 07:34
I've been asked to submit a couple of proposals. I make no comment on what I think of them as potential legislation: I'm merely checking one's legality (having no particular desire to submit two illegal proposals in one go). I appreciate looking over it is a bit of a chore, especially given how many proposals have piled up of late, and what with ongoing Jolt problems, probably a fairly low priority. Nonetheless, if I could get an opinion, I'd be most grateful.
International Court of Abritration
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
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 UN members on the meaning of resolutions:
1. ESTABLISHES an "International Court of Arbitration" (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.
This isn't anything like Freedonia's "UN Court of Justice": rather it's an arbitration body for disputes arising from conflicts over interpretations of UN resolutions (such as those over The Law of the Sea). Clearly, that verges on a GM violation, but I think he's made it toothless enough that it actually does nothing, and only gives the option of such a court. I plan on not recognising it.
My problem is with the category. We were toying with Human Rights, or The Furtherment of Democracy, but decided International Security was best...even though it doesn't actually raise defence spending. Is this a category violation?
International Court of Abritration
Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
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 UN members on the meaning of resolutions:
1. ESTABLISHES an "International Court of Arbitration" (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.
This isn't anything like Freedonia's "UN Court of Justice": rather it's an arbitration body for disputes arising from conflicts over interpretations of UN resolutions (such as those over The Law of the Sea). Clearly, that verges on a GM violation, but I think he's made it toothless enough that it actually does nothing, and only gives the option of such a court. I plan on not recognising it.
My problem is with the category. We were toying with Human Rights, or The Furtherment of Democracy, but decided International Security was best...even though it doesn't actually raise defence spending. Is this a category violation?