| [Debate] [IC] Constitution of the International Court |
|
Eggraria seconds the sentiment of the Peocracy. We wish to see movement on the establishment of the International Court.
~~Rose~~
You may know me as Eggraria! Roleplayer and Writer Minister of Culture Legislator Office of WA Legislation Staff Roleplayer - the State of Eggraria Citizen of The South Pacific above all else.
The speaker informs, that a draft is in WIP at the moment and will hopefully be presented in the next few days, especially as Mr. Strunk wants the voting on the Court to have finished before the next Speaker-Election.
The seat of the International Court was already decided on and will be in Petrovka, Karnetvor. A question arose on what the Peocracy meant with "discussing the body" of the Court, since that was what the current discussions were all about. A draft without a first idea on what the Court shall be, wouldn't be possible. A name for the Court was set prior already (International Court). With that, except the Peocracy meant something different, we already discussed the formulation of the body. Still we also support the formulation of a resolution draft. If someone is against moving on, they can express this until Sunday, 24 h GMT+1. As of Monday, 27 April 2020 any nation could bring in their own resolution draft on the International Court.
Signed
Gianluca IV Roleplayer (active in TSP since 2016) TSPedia-Author Head Bartender of the Lampshade Bar & Grill Information about my roleplay Pacifica GI-Land, Snolland (Hazelbrust), Guardian of the World Forum, IUFA-FWC/WFWC- and Pacivision Supervisor • Aurora Markatt (Maura)
The Empire firmly opposes the formation of a world court, as we believe that such an entity will be used to trample the sovereignty of fellow member states and be used to politically oppress countries whose ideologies do not belong to the mainstream.
We instead propose the formation a council of mediators, headed by an Arbiter.
While we respect your decision to oppose the draft of a resolution with the current discussion results, we would also like to inform you, that you ratified the charter of the World Forum, which reads in Section C:
Charter of the World Forum Wrote:Section C — The Court We would like you to present your arguments how such a council of mediators would meet these criteria and in which way you think the current arguments on the table would cut away sovereignity from the member nations.
Signed
Gianluca IV Roleplayer (active in TSP since 2016) TSPedia-Author Head Bartender of the Lampshade Bar & Grill Information about my roleplay Pacifica GI-Land, Snolland (Hazelbrust), Guardian of the World Forum, IUFA-FWC/WFWC- and Pacivision Supervisor • Aurora Markatt (Maura)
The Empire would also like to remind you that the Empire ratified the world forum charter with reservations.
Now to address the Delegate's concerns, A Council of Mediators, headed by an Arbiter can satisfy the criteria of section C. 1. The Council can settle disputes that are voluntarily submitted and to help the Forum, should the need for arbitration arise. 2. In the event that parties fail to comply with the results of fair mediation, the other party still has the ability to press their case to the Assembly. 3. An arbiter will serve as the symbolic head of the council and may be appointed by the Assembly with a simple Majority vote. 4. The tenure of Council mediators and Arbiter will also be determined by the Assembly. Now to our opposition for the court's formation. First is the Eggrarian Delegate's statements that, "It is imperative the world community develop a system of punishing those who disturb international peace and security. The Eggrarian delegation wholeheartedly supports the drafting of an International Court that allows for the World Forum to reprimand organizations and aid those victimized by harmful actions by aggressors..." While the sentiment is admirable at face value, who determines the victims and the aggressors? Take my own civil war for example. The insurgents believe that we are the aggressors in an invasion while we believe that they are the aggressors for starting the civil war. Another example would be the Hystaigan-Valkyrian War where both sides view the other as the aggressor. Interstate disputes are inherently political with economic, political, and social consequences. A court system would ultimately strip away the sovereignty of member states by granting individuals the power to arbitrarily pass judgement on an entire country. Member states may press their case, but they ultimately voluntarily abdicate their sovereignty and are at the mercy of individuals. Mediators on the other hand can not pass judgement and must work to settle disputes acting as an equalizer in an unbalanced situation. Furthermore, if this body wishes to represent all members then a council of mediators would be more appropriate than a court as mediators are more versatile able to conduct shuttle diplomacy and do not require countries to voluntarily abdicate their sovereignty in the hopes for a favorable resolution.
It has already been stated that the International Court shall deal with cases that are "voluntarily submitted". This would not "trample the sovereignty", but is in the spirit of the WF. I quote the invitation letter from King Vimmru II: "To together strive to resolve them [global issues] through reason. Not because we are forced to, but because we want to."
Tavtid Lekmienn Kingdom of Sedunn
What we meant by the formulation of the body of the International Court is simply those who would abritrate the voluntarily submitted cases and to relieve any possibility of bias and corruption that may potentially happen in a flawed system.
The International court abides to International Law, and international law, must, in essence, be the set of rules, norms, and standards generally accepted in relations between nations. Such framework must be agreed upon. Members of the forum have already ratified the charter in support for the formulation of an international court of law, regardless of the protest made by members in this forum. Ergo in order to dispell any worry in regard to fairness of judgement and the makings of proper decisions, we must now discuss the framework necessary for the International Court. The Humble Peocracy also asks of those with protests, for note that if the cause for action is just, by father sky, you shall be rewarded and judged well. One must not fear to face the law of the land if there is nothing to be hidden. Furthermore, with the absence of Karnetvor in the forum proceedings. We also hereby motion to redesignate the location of the International Court of Law to be in Government Island. Lord Gideon Kwah Royal Delegate of The Peocracy of Huawan
"毎日の小さな努力の積み重ねが歴史を作っていくんだよ。"
Put a little effort everyday and it will stack up and create a foundation for you. - Doraemon
Treasure Island Awards Best Roleplay 2020 Treasure Island Awards Best Roleplayer 2020 Cocos Winner for Best Character Writer 2017 Cocos Winner for Best International Event 2017 Cocos Winner for Best Overall RP 2017 Things to know: Medical Intern and Biomedical Scientist from Indonesia, Muslim, 188 metres tall, loves trains
Thanks to you both for providing your views. We will try to implement this into our resolution.
Also thanks to Mr. Lekmienn for reminding us, what the Forum's spirit shall be. As for the location of the court: We agreed in the Grovne Conference on the current location. Just because the former speakers weren't able to constitute the court quickly enough - I need to blame myself for that too -, I don't think we should trample on our agreements from when we founded the World Forum. Christian Strunk Speaker of the Assembly Ambassador for the Federal Republic of GI-Land
Signed
Gianluca IV Roleplayer (active in TSP since 2016) TSPedia-Author Head Bartender of the Lampshade Bar & Grill Information about my roleplay Pacifica GI-Land, Snolland (Hazelbrust), Guardian of the World Forum, IUFA-FWC/WFWC- and Pacivision Supervisor • Aurora Markatt (Maura)
Dear ambassadors,
I finally want to provide you a draft for the resolution of the International Court, which will be up for discussion. However I want to change the procedure of working on this motion a little. We all know, what we decided on at the Grovne Conference as we all ratified and accepted the charter. But we also know, that this discussion was a little heated already at Grovne Conference and still is, when we look back at what you all have contributed in this debate - mainly because several nations fear to give up too much sovereignity to the World Forum - something the WF does not thrive for at all as we want to cooperate voluntarily based on common ground rules. This resolution includes not only one opinion, but tries to include all options, which are in line with what the founding members have agreed on in 2017. Thus this draft includes alternatives, so I provide you three options to deal with this resolution draft. 1) If you are mostly or completely against the resolution: Provide an alternative. Either by writing an own resolution draft or by amending this draft. 2) If you are against this resolution, but either can't provide or don't want to provide an alternative, you can speak out against the draft of course, but this won't result in any change of the resolution itself and will not result in postponing any motion to vote. 3) If you are in favour of this resolution, please tell the Assembly which alternatives from the text you want to see in the final draft, that we vote on. You can vote too, if you are against the resolution, but want to have your voice still be heard in case you cannot generate enough support for your own alternative resolution. For now this discussion and amendment phase will be held until Sunday, 3 May 2020, 23:59 h GMT+1. ![[Image: uniA0N6.png]](https://i.imgur.com/uniA0N6.png) WF-Resolution 1b - Establishment of the International Court
Section A – Purpose
This resolution aims towards establishing the International Court (IC) according to its framework laid out in Article II, Section C of the Charter of the World Forum. Section B – Responsibilities 1. Alternative 1 The International Court shall: a) have the authority to adjudicate disputes and administer justice in accordance to the International Laws as defined in the Grovne Conventions, which are voluntarily submitted by nations, regions in nations, international organisations, or individuals involved in the dispute, henceforth defined as Entities. Entities do not have to be members or observers of the World Forum to submit a dispute to the International Court. b) help the Assembly, should the need for arbitration arise. c) propose actions to the Assembly when Entities violate human rights d) judge Entities that disturb international peace and security e) propose the deployment of peacekeeping troops or other sanctions to the Assembly, should no other action be deemed sufficient to resolve the dispute. Any rulings by the International Court must always be based on international law as defined in the Grovne Conventions. If one party fails to comply with a decision of the International Court, the other party may have recourse to the Assembly, where a recommendation may be made. 1. Alternative 2 The International Court shall: a) have the authority to adjudicate disputes and administer justice in accordance to the International Laws as defined in the Grovne Conventions, which are voluntarily submitted by nations, regions in nations, international organisations, or individuals involved in the dispute, henceforth defined as Entities. Entities do not have to be members or observers of the World Forum to submit a dispute to the International Court. b) help the Assembly, should the need for arbitration arise. c) propose actions to the Assembly when Entities violate human rights d) judge Entities that disturb international peace and security e) propose the deployment of peacekeeping troops or other sanctions to the Assembly, should no other action be deemed sufficient to resolve the dispute. f) mediate in conflicts between bodies of industry, which are voluntarily submitted to it. Any rulings by the International Court must always be based on international law as defined in the Grovne Conventions. If one party fails to comply with a decision of the International Court, the other party may have recourse to the Assembly, where a recommendation may be made. 2. In case of a trial, the accused Entities will be provided counsel versed in international law by the International Court. The defendant may also appoint counsel of their choice. If they are unable to find one, the International Court needs to provide counsel versed in international law. 3. The International Court shall work out guidelines to protect witnesses and testifiers to the International Court. These guidelines need approval by a simple majority in the Assembly. Section C – Location 1. Alternative 1 The seat of the International Court is in Petrovka, Karnetvor. The Assembly may relocate the Court with a simple majority vote after hearing the country, in which the International Court is located, and taking possible counter arguments into consideration. The country has been heard after it has expressed its standpoint on the relocation or after fourteen (14) days have passed. 1. Alternative 2 The seat of the International Court is on Government Island. The Assembly may relocate the International Court with a simple majority vote after hearing the country, in which the Court is located, and taking possible counter arguments into consideration. The country has been heard after it has expressed its standpoint on the relocation or after fourteen (14) days have passed. Section D – Organisation 1. Alternative 1 All members of the World Forum are represented with one justice in the International Court proposed by the member’s government. All justices need approval by the Assembly with a simple majority vote. In each case only a board of three (3) justices administer justice. The term of each justice lasts one (1) year, after which the Assembly needs to approve the judge again. 1. Alternative 2 All members of the World Forum are represented with one justice in the International Court proposed by the member’s government. All justices need approval by the Assembly with a simple majority vote. In each case only a board of five (5) justices administer justice. The term of each justice lasts one (1) year, after which the Assembly needs to approve the judge again. 1. Alternative 3 All members of the World Forum are represented with one justice in the International Court proposed by the member’s government. All justices need to get approved by the Assembly with a simple majority vote. In each case only a board of seven (7) justices administer justice. The term of each justice lasts one (1) year, after which the Assembly needs to approve the judge again. 2. The approval of justices happens during the speakership elections. The Assembly can decide on whether to approve all judges at once or to have a vote for each judge separately. 3. The Speaker of the Assembly shall ensure, that the board of justices working on a case only consists of justices who are unbiased towards either party of the conflict. All conflicting parties have the right to file a complaint if they are feeling mistreated by the Court. Such a complaint shall get sent to the Speaker with an explanatory letter attached to it. A complaint without such an explanatory letter will not be considered. The Speaker decides on whether to act upon such a complaint. 4. For the duration of the term, there shall be a head justice who is appointed by the other justices by a majority vote to lead the work of the International Court. The head justice shall be neutral in all disputes. 5. The participation in a peacekeeping mission is entirely voluntary. No member of the World Forum is bound to send troops, material, money or other goods, if the Assembly has voted in favor of deploying peacekeeping troops after a suggestion by the International Court. Section E - Procedure 1. Rulings shall be decided by a majority vote by the board. 2. Rulings may be appealed. If the head justice finds that there is reason to do so, new justices shall replace those in the board. 3. The International Court shall otherwise have the authority to establish its own procedural framework by majority votes by the justices. Christian Strunk Speaker of the Assembly Ambassador of the Federal Republic of GI-Land
Signed
Gianluca IV Roleplayer (active in TSP since 2016) TSPedia-Author Head Bartender of the Lampshade Bar & Grill Information about my roleplay Pacifica GI-Land, Snolland (Hazelbrust), Guardian of the World Forum, IUFA-FWC/WFWC- and Pacivision Supervisor • Aurora Markatt (Maura)
Eggraria is in support of the proposed establishments in regards to Alternatives 2, 2, 2, and 3 in accordance with the order presented in each section. We also wish to note that we, as an observer nation, do not plan to vote on these matters but simply wish to express our desire for this specific outcome.
~~Rose~~
You may know me as Eggraria! Roleplayer and Writer Minister of Culture Legislator Office of WA Legislation Staff Roleplayer - the State of Eggraria Citizen of The South Pacific above all else. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former positions![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[Image: C5xhL3j.png]](https://i.imgur.com/C5xhL3j.png)
![[Image: xpCtQTW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xpCtQTW.png)
![[Image: snqZrFA.png]](https://i.imgur.com/snqZrFA.png)
![[Image: 5bDBXB8.png]](https://i.imgur.com/5bDBXB8.png)
![[Image: Gny2SfF.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Gny2SfF.png)
![[Image: tUG5vUH.png]](https://i.imgur.com/tUG5vUH.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |