Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Great Eurussia Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:29 pm

New Tarajan wrote:Yes, the Court is independent from the other bodies of the WA Government. But here we are not questioning the judgement powers of the Court: instead, we are talking about its authority to use the WA Organizations to perform interventions which, for their own nature, infringe national sovereignty.
I hope you will understand the seriousness of such a point.
We need to be sure that such interventions will be performed only as last chance, and in the full respect of the International Law and the WA Constitution and, moreover, with the full understanding of the Community (which is not so automatically as you may believe).
The Council will be the "link" between the judiciary decision (Court) and the executory intervention (the Organizations). This way also we will make it far more efficient: instead of asking to all members of an organization to vote about the intervention, it will be the Council to decide.

Good point though. But if we seek the Council's consent, we should limit it into one or two days so as to avoid politicking like delaying the decision to give the consent. What if they reject it?

New Tarajan Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:40 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:Yes, the Court is independent from the other bodies of the WA Government. But here we are not questioning the judgement powers of the Court: instead, we are talking about its authority to use the WA Organizations to perform interventions which, for their own nature, infringe national sovereignty.
I hope you will understand the seriousness of such a point.
We need to be sure that such interventions will be performed only as last chance, and in the full respect of the International Law and the WA Constitution and, moreover, with the full understanding of the Community (which is not so automatically as you may believe).
The Council will be the "link" between the judiciary decision (Court) and the executory intervention (the Organizations). This way also we will make it far more efficient: instead of asking to all members of an organization to vote about the intervention, it will be the Council to decide.

Good point though. But if we seek the Council's consent, we should limit it into one or two days so as to avoid politicking like delaying the decision to give the consent. What if they reject it?

On this point we can intervene with this bill. We can give to the Council a time-limit, as you specified. Moreover, I believe that, if there's such a clear violation of the Constitution (also with evidences brought by the Court), the Council will not reject. But, let us think about such a possibility: in this case, the Parliament can intervene, with a non-confidence vote against the Council (which is, in few words, violating the Constitution by not intervening). The ratio behind the idea to make the Council co-responsible for the intervention is to give a political legitimacy to it and to allow the Council to decide which Organization, and with which mandate, will intervene.

Great Eurussia Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:56 pm

Spoiler:

You see? This is precisely the point of the Court's independence! The court already knows what organization to choose from and why bother asking an executive branch just for a consent?

Now saying that the Council rejects and then gets a no confidence vote from Parliament, and if the latter removes the Council? Shall the world wait for another round of elections just to get the consent of that Council? What if the same nations gets elected again? What if the Council survives the no confidence vote? WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE COURT VERDICT WHERE THE COUNCIL & PARLIAMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!???

The judicial independence is now politicized which the law has avoided. Plain and simple. Besides the Court is elected and can be removed anytime if the world thinks they are corrupt!

New Tarajan Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:24 am

Yes, the Court would be removed but....what would happen to that State that, for hypothesis, has seen its own sovereign rights violated by that Court?

I know that could appear bureaucratic, but sometimes give political legitimacy for such a huge decision, it's the best way to avoid further problems (and to give the necessary guarantees to everyone).

Great Eurussia Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:07 am

New Tarajan wrote:Yes, the Court would be removed but....what would happen to that State that, for hypothesis, has seen its own sovereign rights violated by that Court?

I know that could appear bureaucratic, but sometimes give political legitimacy for such a huge decision, it's the best way to avoid further problems (and to give the necessary guarantees to everyone).

It is something that we should give the honourable court the benefit of the doubt. They are elected and any grievances in a case will still be heard by them no matter what. And the presumption of judicial fairness and impartiality is unremovable from the court.

Federation of Antanares Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:10 am

I must remind to Eurussia and New Tarajan that the time for the discussions is finished two days ago. It's the voting time, not the discussion time. Thanks.

New Tarajan Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:11 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:Yes, the Court would be removed but....what would happen to that State that, for hypothesis, has seen its own sovereign rights violated by that Court?

I know that could appear bureaucratic, but sometimes give political legitimacy for such a huge decision, it's the best way to avoid further problems (and to give the necessary guarantees to everyone).

It is something that we should give the honourable court the benefit of the doubt. They are elected and any grievances in a case will still be heard by them no matter what. And the presumption of judicial fairness and impartiality is unremovable from the court.

In this case, I remove my amendment. We can substitute it with a simple consultancy between the Court and the Council about the intervention, in order to understand all the eventual political factors, and to better coordinate actions (in the full respect of the independence of both bodies).
I'm still working about the Annex on the sovereign rights, which will take some time to be completed, unfortunately.

Great Eurussia Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:14 am

Federation of Antanares wrote:I must remind to Eurussia and New Tarajan that the time for the discussions is finished two days ago. It's the voting time, not the discussion time. Thanks.

Well on that note, Eurussia is in favor.

@New Tarajan, just continue with it and forward it nezt time as a revision or addition to this law.

New Tarajan Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:20 am

I ask sorry to the Speaker. I didn't notice the announcement of the vote period.

However, with the new amendment, New Tarajan is IN FAVOUR of the bill.

Dromoda Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:32 am

Dromoda is IN FAVOR of the bill.

Texania Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:04 am

In favor

Federation of Antanares Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:13 am

Vote period is over.

AGAINST: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
FOR: 6

Sponsored content