Your Honour

I'd first like to quote the following clauses from the Judicial Act and the accompanying Resolution on the Passage of the Judicial Act to establish the premise for this Legal Question.

Quote:Resolution on the Passage of the Judicial Act

The Assembly of the Coalition of the South Pacific resolves the following upon passage of the Judicial Act:

(1) The incumbent Permanent Justice will be appointed as Chief Justice. 

Quote:Article 2 of the Judicial Act

(2) An Associate Justice must have legislator status in the South Pacific and take an oath of confidentiality and impartiality.

(3) The Chief Justice must fulfill the requirements to be an Associate Justice, and additionally may not serve as senior or junior cabinet minister, as Chair of Assembly or their deputy, or as Delegate.

Considering the above, my questions are as follows: 

1. Does the Judicial Act have precedence over the Resolution?
   
2. Furthermore, as a matter of precedent for future High Court rulings, is there a hierarchy as to which pieces of legislation should have precedence over others? 
   
3. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, the Chief Justice is required to meet the same requirements as that of an Associate Justice, including that of taking "an oath of confidentiality and impartiality". As such, would it mean the Clause 1 of the Resolution would be inconsistent with the Judicial Act, given that the Permanent Justice cannot be appointed Chief Justice until and unless they have taken the oath?
   
4. On a matter of procedure: Given the lack of specific language for the oath, which institution would be the most appropriate to set out the wording of the oath and the protocol by which the oath is subscribed to - the High Court by means of enacting procedural conventions abided to by all Justices or the Assembly by means of enacting legislation establishing the wording and protocol for the oath?
   

I thank the Court for its time.