(Rejected) Regional Treaty Registry

New Tarajan wrote:

REGIONAL TREATY REGISTRY

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan

Member of the World Alliance Royalist Party (WARP)
Member of the WA Parliament and the WA Council

The World Alliance Parliament

Acknowledging
that there is the need, for every country, to be constantly informed about the signature of treaties between other States or Organizations, and their true content, to make an effective and efficient foreign policy;
that the Court of Justice should be called to judge upon the effectiveness or extension, or other related problems, of a Treaty, thus requiring a reliable, official version of the Treaty itself;
that the respect of the clauses of a Treaty is far more possible if the Treaty itself is publicly submitted

Mandates
that every Treaty or Founding Charter of International Organizations or Associations (outside for the ones created through acts of the World Alliance Government), or International Convention, or bilateral and multi-lateral treaties and agreements between States, must be duly registered in the Regional Treaty Registry in their full content, in the case the participants to such documents wish to have the World Alliance as bailee of the effectiveness of the documents.

Every State will continue to be free to conclude treaties without registration. However, in this case, the World Alliance and the Court of Justice should not be called as bailees of their effective respect.


OOC:
To improve the readability of the thread, I suggest to divide it into two sections: one for treaties related to Organizations, Associations or Conventions, and the second one for bilateral or multi-lateral treaties and agreements between States.

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:

REGIONAL TREATY REGISTRY

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan

Member of the World Alliance Royalist Party (WARP)
Member of the WA Parliament and the WA Council

The World Alliance Parliament

Acknowledging
that there is the need, for every country, to be constantly informed about the signature of treaties between other States or Organizations, and their true content, to make an effective and efficient foreign policy;
that the Court of Justice should be called to judge upon the effectiveness or extension, or other related problems, of a Treaty, thus requiring a reliable, official version of the Treaty itself;
that the respect of the clauses of a Treaty is far more possible if the Treaty itself is publicly submitted

Mandates
that every Treaty or Founding Charter of International Organizations or Associations (outside for the ones created through acts of the World Alliance Government), or International Convention, or bilateral and multi-lateral treaties and agreements between States, must be duly registered in the Regional Treaty Registry in their full content, in the case the participants to such documents wish to have the World Alliance as bailee of the effectiveness of the documents.

Every State will continue to be free to conclude treaties without registration. However, in this case, the World Alliance and the Court of Justice should not be called as bailees of their effective respect.


OOC:
To improve the readability of the thread, I suggest to divide it into two sections: one for treaties related to Organizations, Associations or Conventions, and the second one for bilateral or multi-lateral treaties and agreements between States.

Eurussia seeks clarification to the highlighted provision above.

New Tarajan wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:

REGIONAL TREATY REGISTRY

Every State will continue to be free to conclude treaties without registration. However, in this case, the World Alliance and the Court of Justice should not be called as bailees of their effective respect.

Eurussia seeks clarification to the highlighted provision above.

It is impossible to force every country to make public treaties and agreements. Obviously, it is a sovereign right of every country to sign secret treaties and agreements. However, in this case, the respect of these agreements would be not granted by the World Alliance institutions.
Differently, a Treaty registered in the apposite place would be guaranteed by the World Alliance institutions, since they are well aware of its content and of the parts who signed it (it's like the system existing for the United Nations, where the Secretary General is the guarantee of every Treaty concluded at the international level, if it is submitted to him).

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:

REGIONAL TREATY REGISTRY

Every State will continue to be free to conclude treaties without registration. However, in this case, the World Alliance and the Court of Justice should not be called as bailees of their effective respect.

Eurussia seeks clarification to the highlighted provision above.

It is impossible to force every country to make public treaties and agreements. Obviously, it is a sovereign right of every country to sign secret treaties and agreements. However, in this case, the respect of these agreements would be not granted by the World Alliance institutions.
Differently, a Treaty registered in the apposite place would be guaranteed by the World Alliance institutions, since they are well aware of its content and of the parts who signed it (it's like the system existing for the United Nations, where the Secretary General is the guarantee of every Treaty concluded at the international level, if it is submitted to him).

Hence, the provision must be strike down as it implies that the World Alliance Government would simply not care if nations doesn't submit their respective treaties and agreements, and since it is its implication, it is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, the Court of Justice, as the sole judiciary under the WA Government, has all the powers to settle disputes arising from treaties and agreements, therefore, whether it is publicized (registered) or not, still the Court of Justice, as an international organ, has judicial jurisdiction over them.

New Tarajan wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

New Tarajan wrote:

REGIONAL TREATY REGISTRY

Every State will continue to be free to conclude treaties without registration. However, in this case, the World Alliance and the Court of Justice should not be called as bailees of their effective respect.

Eurussia seeks clarification to the highlighted provision above.

It is impossible to force every country to make public treaties and agreements. Obviously, it is a sovereign right of every country to sign secret treaties and agreements. However, in this case, the respect of these agreements would be not granted by the World Alliance institutions.
Differently, a Treaty registered in the apposite place would be guaranteed by the World Alliance institutions, since they are well aware of its content and of the parts who signed it (it's like the system existing for the United Nations, where the Secretary General is the guarantee of every Treaty concluded at the international level, if it is submitted to him).

Hence, the provision must be strike down as it implies that the World Alliance Government would simply not care if nations doesn't submit their respective treaties and agreements, and since it is its implication, it is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, the Court of Justice, as the sole judiciary under the WA Government, has all the powers to settle disputes arising from treaties and agreements, therefore, whether it is publicized (registered) or not, still the Court of Justice, as an international organ, has judicial jurisdiction over them.

I agree about what you said on the Court of Justice.
But to ensure this jurisdiction, it is necessary that the Court has something to judge upon. If there is no official text of a Treaty, how it would be possible for the Court to correctly judge over disputes about this Treaty itself?

New Tarajan wrote:Very well then, the abovementioned clause it hereby deleted.

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:A debating period for this bill has begun, and will end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 27th of November, 2013. After which, a voting period will ensue and end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 30th of November, 2013.

Great Eurussia wrote:

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:A debating period for this bill has begun, and will end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 27th of November, 2013. After which, a voting period will ensue and end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 30th of November, 2013.

OOC: With the voting period over and with no majority approval obtained, am I correct to say MARQUETTE that this proposal is unfortunately, dismissed?