(Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

New Tarajan Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:55 pm

JUDICIARY INVESTIGATION ACT

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, in representation of the Empire of Tarajan, the Arveyran Dominions and the Outer Territories, Member of the World Alliance Royalist Party, President of the Council

Section I.

Art. 1

The World Alliance, recognizing the necessity, for the Court of Justice (CoJ), to proceed with independent investigation, as an indispensable requirements for the fulfillment of its mandate as established by the Constitution, hereby creates the Office of the Prosecutor General of the CoJ.

Art. 2

The mandate of the Prosecutor General is defined by this law, alongside his duties and responsibilities.

Art. 3

The Prosecutor General shall be choosen by the Members of the Court of Justice immediately after the approval of this law.
It is eligible for the seat every country actively engaged in the WA activities. The choice shall be communicated to the President of the Council and the Speaker of the Parliament in two (2) days. If the choosen country accepts the appointment, it will immediately take its Office.
The seat of Prosecutor General is not compatible with any other seat inside the Court of Justice itself, the Parliament or the Council. In case the appointed country already holds a position inside these three bodies, it shall immediately resign.

Art. 4

The position of Prosecutor General is for life. The Court of Justice can order to the Prosecutor General to leave its seat.
The Council and the Parliament can submit to the Court the request for removal of the Prosecutor General from its Office with a two-thirds majority vote, specifying the reasons for such a move and only in case of violations of the law, which may be determined by the judgement of the Court.

Section II.

Art. 5

The main duty of the Prosecutor General is to investigate, collect evidences and assist the members of the CoJ in the fulfillment of their mandate through consultation and analysis.
It has the right to begin preliminary investigations on every country, organization, institution and political entity, if there is the suspect of violations of the law, under request of the CoJ. Every WA Institution, Organization and Country has the right to submit to the Court of Justice a formal request for investigation.
It is the duty of the CoJ to send an official notice to all the parties involved, specifying the reasons which lead to the investigation.
The Prosecutor General will then send a memorandum to all the parties involved and to the CoJ, with the results of the preliminary investigation. The memorandum shall be issued in one week after the official beginning of the investigation.

Art. 6

In case the results of the preliminary investigation call for the intervention of the CoJ, the Prosecutor General shall immediately send all the evidences collected to the CoJ itself.
The Prosecutor-General shall act as the de jureprosecutor during cases involving, insofar as limited to, State v. WA Government, Regional Organization v. Government, Law (Parliamentary or Council) v. Government. The Prosector-General shall not participate in cases that involve one state versus another, or where one state charges another.

Art. 7

The Prosecutor General can request to the Court the suspension of every suspected activity during the phase of preliminary investigation. The suspended activity can be immediately resumed after one week, if the results of the investigation do not provide any evidence against it.
In case of violation of the order of suspension, the Prosecutor General can request to the Court the intervention of the WADSJ.

Section III.

Art. 8

In the fulfillment of its mandate, the Prosecutor General shall have the full collaboration of every country, institution, organization and political entity of the World Alliance. However, any country, institution, organization or political entity can refuse the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor General and the Court, thus freeing itself from this obligation.

Art. 9

In case the Prosecutor General is a party involved in a trial, it is the duty of the CoJ to appoint a new Prosecutor General with a temporarily-limited mandate.

New Tarajan Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:56 pm

Debate period will last until the 12th of April.
Thank you.

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:30 pm

New Tarajan wrote:
JUDICIARY INVESTIGATION ACT

Authored by the Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, in representation of the Empire of Tarajan, the Arveyran Dominions and the Outer Territories, Member of the World Alliance Royalist Party, President of the Council

Section I.

Art. 1

The World Alliance, recognizing the necessity, for the Court of Justice (CoJ), to proceed with independent investigation, as an indispensable requirements for the fulfillment of its mandate as established by the Constitution, hereby creates the Office of the Prosecutor General of the CoJ.

Art. 2

The mandate of the Prosecutor General is defined by this law, alongside his duties and responsibilities.

Art. 3

The Prosecutor General shall be choosen by the Members of the Court of Justice immediately after the approval of this law.
It is eligible for the seat every country actively engaged in the WA activities. The choice shall be communicated to the President of the Council and the Speaker of the Parliament in two (2) days. If the choosen country accepts the appointment, it will immediately take its Office.
The seat of Prosecutor General is not compatible with any other seat inside the Court of Justice itself, the Parliament or the Council. In case the appointed country already holds a position inside these three bodies, it shall immediately resign.

Art. 4

The position of Prosecutor General is for life. In case of severe violations of the law, the Court of Justice can order to the Prosecutor General to leave its seat.
The Council and the Parliament can submit to the Court the request for removal of the Prosecutor General from its Office with a two-thirds majority vote, specifying the reasons for such a move and only in case of violations of the law, which may be determined by the judgement of the Court.

Section II.

Art. 5

The main duty of the Prosecutor General is to investigate, collect evidences and assist the members of the CoJ in the fulfillment of their mandate through consultation and analysis.
It has the right to begin preliminary investigations on every country, organization, institution and political entity, if there is the suspect of violations of the law, under request of the CoJ. Every WA Institution, Organization and Country has the right to submit to the Court of Justice a formal request for investigation.
It is the duty of the CoJ to send an official notice to all the parties involved, specifying the reasons which lead to the investigation.
The Prosecutor General will then send a memorandum to all the parties involved and to the CoJ, with the results of the preliminary investigation. The memorandum shall be issued in one week after the official beginning of the investigation.

Art. 6

In case the results of the preliminary investigation call for the intervention of the CoJ, the Prosecutor General shall immediately send all the evidences collected to the CoJ itself. It will also take the role of prosecutor during the subsequent trial.

Art. 7

The Prosecutor General has the right to suspend every suspected activity during the phase of preliminary investigation. The suspended activity can be immediately resumed after one week, if the results of the investigation do not provide any evidence against it.
In case of violation of the order of suspension, the Prosecutor General can directly ask for an intervention of the WADSJ.

Section III.

Art. 8

In the fulfillment of its mandate, the Prosecutor General shall have the full collaboration of every country, institution, organization and political entity of the World Alliance.

Art. 9

In case the Prosecutor General is a party involved in a trial, it is the duty of the CoJ to appoint a new Prosecutor General with a temporarily-limited mandate.

Eurussia praises the objectives of this proposed bill. However, we express our deep concerns on its blatant disregard to every sovereign state'a sovereignty and independent of all countries in the world. Not to mention the fact that the position of the Prosecutor General is handled by only single country that could lead to abuse when political motivations are used.

We are also worried on the implications of Articles 7 and Article 8 of the bill which disregards the independence of every country and seriously undermines several rights of sovereign states sacredly protected by the Constitution. Hence, we request clarification and amendments if necessary assuring respect to a state's sovereignty.

Eurussia, however, is open the Prosecutor General to conduct investigations to all of the organizations of the WA Governments as they were all created by the WA Parliament. However, it is different when the Prosecutor General insists itself and will disrespect othet independent international organizations without the full consent of the nations involved in the organization.

We seek to address these concerns as we are ready to challenge and strike down the entire bill by challenging its conformity and possible violations of the rights of the countries in the world protected by the Constitution. On the other hand, Eurussia wishes to support the bill provided that it is in line with the WA Constitution.

New Tarajan Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:26 pm

We take note of the Eurussian concerns, and we wish to answer to the questions posed.

About the issue of State sovereignty: every State of the World Alliance agreed to the creation of the Court of Justice. Now, the concept itself of a supranational Court is, in some sense, a violation of State sovereignty in its more classical concept: every single judgement and verdict expressed by the Court is a violation, in some degree, of national sovereignty. But I believe nobody would, for this reason, try to simply void any decision of the Court, am I right? Thus, the institution of the Office of Prosecutor General simply give to the CoJ a necessary, I would say even critical, tool in order to fulfill its mandate. Yes, it's possible the Prosecutor should commit abuses: but this is a violation of the law, and it is expressly provided by this bill that the Prosecutor is subject to the judgement of the Court: it's not a god-like position, of course.

About Article 7: the Article is a necessary complement to the mandate of the Prosecutor General. Indeed, if a particular activity is subjected to investigation, and it's a possible violation of law, it would be a non-sense not to stop it. Let me do an example: a country militarily aggrieves a neighbour. It is at least obvious, and natural, that, if the aggrieved party will ask for the CoJ to intervene in order to decide about the legitimacy of the military intervention, the Prosecutor General shall be authorized to order a temporary stop of all military activities, before the conflict further escalates.

About Article 8: I don't see the reason for the objection, since the article simply mandate to the WA Members (in the most wide sense of the word) to fully collaborate with the Prosecutor, thus with the Court. It's a simple norm, and a direct derivation of the juridical powers of the Court itself.

In the end, we can reiterate once again: yes, the existence of a Prosecutor General will surely interfere with national sovereignty in its Westphalian concept. But this concept has been already, extensively, challenged by the existence of the Court of Justice...better: by the existence of the World Alliance Government as a whole.
Thus, what about the legitimacy (with respect to the WA Constitution)? We believe the bill proposed is in perfect conformity. Its only aim is to help the CoJ fulfilling its own mandate, as provided by the Constitution itself, thus, indirectly, also protecting the right of many countries to enjoy those same rights you underlined.

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:39 pm

Spoiler:

No, you are absolutely wrong. If its a matter of theory or principle, the Court was created via the Constitution to settle disputes among sovereign states through their goodwill and voluntary participation to peacefully settle disputes. Thanks as well to the Judicial Protocol Act that further reinforces that systematized settlement. Having said that, it is the same Constitution that prioritized the Bill of Rights on its provisions respecting several rights of all countries. In that sense, the creation of the Court is equal to the respect to a sovereign state's sovereignty.

In the Judicial Protocol Act, which Eurussia authored, have passed due to its detailed respect to a state's sovereignty. And remember as well, the Orenburg Aggression case that led to New Tarajan's conviction. Thus it required the necessity for a prosecutor general? In an international court case that deals with a country's sovereignty, it is the primary duty of the complainant to show all the evidences against the defendant. The same way the Orenburg Aggression case happened.

In fact, we have not seen the need for a prosecutor general in any case before since the Court can do it on its own under its fair powers. And by giving or extending that very power to a single state prosecutor general, it simply abusive and will lead to a tyrant judiciary which can only happen in local scenarios and never on international cases as this proposed prosecutor general can easily abuse its powers by infringing a state's sovereignty.

Lastly, by admitting that the bill indeed a blatant violation of a state's sovereignty, well, that killed the bill itself and will kill the law right after its passage, if ever so. With such admission, Eurussia rejects this bill and will challenge this in Court, if ever it passes. We can never allow an abusive law blatantly violative of the Constitution from the start.

New Tarajan Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:49 pm

You're free to challenge what you want, whenever and wherever you desire.

But this will not change facts.
And the fact is that you are appealing to a Westphalian concept of sovereignty that the Constitution itself already challenges.
You remind the Orenburg Case. Very well: in that case, did not the Court challenge the national sovereignty of New Tarajan, which expressed at its peak in the form of military action? Of course it did. But this doesn't mean that the judgement of the Court was illegal. And it was Eurussia, first of all, which seeked for the forced implementation of the verdict, if I remember well. What's a best example of a violated sovereignty?
This is nothing different. Yes, until now, the CoJ did not need a Prosecutor General, maybe. But I strongly believe that the creation of such an Office would greatly improve the quality of the work of the Court itself, thus allowing a more fair judgement, a more quick process, and the possibility, for the judges, to have dedicated consultation and analysis. I don't see nothing wrong with this.
But, probably, it's better to directly hear the opinion of the Court about the need for such an Office (opinion that I personally already asked for, obviously, before coming out with this draft).
And, please, don't use my own words for you own interpretations: we simply compared this bill and its effects, to the effects of the already-existing Court of Justice.

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:58 pm

New Tarajan wrote:You're free to challenge what you want, whenever and wherever you desire.

But this will not change facts.
And the fact is that you are appealing to a Westphalian concept of sovereignty that the Constitution itself already challenges.
You remind the Orenburg Case. Very well: in that case, did not the Court challenge the national sovereignty of New Tarajan, which expressed at its peak in the form of military action? Of course it did. But this doesn't mean that the judgement of the Court was illegal. And it was Eurussia, first of all, which seeked for the forced implementation of the verdict, if I remember well. What's a best example of a violated sovereignty?
This is nothing different. Yes, until now, the CoJ did not need a Prosecutor General, maybe. But I strongly believe that the creation of such an Office would greatly improve the quality of the work of the Court itself, thus allowing a more fair judgement, a more quick process, and the possibility, for the judges, to have dedicated consultation and analysis. I don't see nothing wrong with this.
But, probably, it's better to directly hear the opinion of the Court about the need for such an Office (opinion that I personally already asked for, obviously, before coming out with this draft).
And, please, don't use my own words for you own interpretations: we simply compared this bill and its effects, to the effects of the already-existing Court of Justice.

Again, you are wrong. Since we are talking about the Orenburg Aggression Case that led to New Tarajan's conviction, does it in anyway was forced upon New Tarajan? Yes it was initiated by Eurussia, but New Tarajan willfully joined the arbitration from the verey beginning that allowed the case to proceed and with its verdict against New Tarajan, the latter must accept it as a direct participant to the case. That is the purpose of the Constitution and international judiciary respecting every nation's sovereignty.

With regards to the Court's functions, it may, probably make the Court's work easier, more functional but more prone to abuse, more prone to infringement of a state's sovereignty. More violations to the Constitition. And yes it has lots of impact to all, on the negative side.

We would also like to take note that the Court was duly composed of THREE COUNTRIES for them to work together to exercise the court's judicial power collectively and fairly. So why give that 'collective responsibility' to a single prosecutor general that is prone to abusive powers? Because it might serve a good tool for politically motivated nations to advance their self intetests.

New Tarajan Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:03 pm

First point: nowhere, in this bill, it is said that nations are forced to comply with the jurisdiction of the Court.
Like before, any country will continue to have the freedom to submit themselves, or not, to such a jurisdiction. The Prosecutor General is a branch of the Court, thus subjected to the same limitations of the Court itself.
And it has no independent judicial powers, I wish to remind: it's not a judge, only an investigator.

Once again, we should wait for the Court to express its own opinion, here, about the need for such an Office, since you seem not to see it right now and, at the end, the job is theirs.

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:23 pm

New Tarajan wrote:First point: nowhere, in this bill, it is said that nations are forced to comply with the jurisdiction of the Court.
Like before, any country will continue to have the freedom to submit themselves, or not, to such a jurisdiction. The Prosecutor General is a branch of the Court, thus subjected to the same limitations of the Court itself.
And it has no independent judicial powers, I wish to remind: it's not a judge, only an investigator.

Once again, we should wait for the Court to express its own opinion, here, about the need for such an Office, since you seem not to see it right now and, at the end, the job is theirs.

No, New Tarajan simply misses the point. Not only the position is abusive and a violation by itself, it also delegates judicial powers solely and explicitly granted to the Court of Justice's three elected judge countries. Your explanations has explicitly carry no weight to how the violative bill is explicitly written.

Again, 'forcing to comply' whether written or not in the bill doesn't constitute that in principle its functions is not in the bill. The words on Article 7 and 8 obviously contradicts New Tarajan's own explanations. Not to forget the fact that New Tarajan has admitted that the bill itself will interfere on a nation's sovereignty.

Europe and Asia Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:33 pm

For the love of god Eurussia, every single international organization is a violation of sovereignty in one way or another. By joining a multinational region, you agree to give up some of your sovereignty. Moreover, stopping TEMPORARILY actions by nations is not a breach of sovereignty. The real world UN does it, or attempts to do it, all the time.

New Tarajan Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:35 pm

Once again, and for the last time, you're interpreting my own words at your wish: I said that this bill violates national sovereignty only like the existence of the Court of Justice himself, as I've already explained it.
The position is not abusive, because there's no law which prohibits the creation of such a position. I didn't read such a statement anywhere, neither in the Constitutio nor in some other places. The powers of three elected judges WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED in any way to the Prosecutor General, who will simply assist them, collecting evidences and providing consultations and analysis to them.

Also, thanks to Eurasia for his explanations.

Planitan Commonwealth Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:35 pm

I give support of this bill, and I agree with E&A every time you join a organization (which is every single one in existence) you are handing over some of your sovereignty

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:55 pm

Europe and Asia wrote:For the love of god Eurussia, every single international organization is a violation of sovereignty in one way or another. By joining a multinational region, you agree to give up some of your sovereignty. Moreover, stopping TEMPORARILY actions by nations is not a breach of sovereignty. The real world UN does it, or attempts to do it, all the time.

Again, joining an international organization is not a violation of one's sovereignty. It is the goodwill to join the efforts of other countries to achieve the objectives of that organization. Have you heard the International Court of Justice forced itself upon sovereign nations? NO.

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:58 pm

New Tarajan wrote:Once again, and for the last time, you're interpreting my own words at your wish: I said that this bill violates national sovereignty only like the existence of the Court of Justice himself, as I've already explained it.
The position is not abusive, because there's no law which prohibits the creation of such a position. I didn't read such a statement anywhere, neither in the Constitutio nor in some other places. The powers of three elected judges WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED in any way to the Prosecutor General, who will simply assist them, collecting evidences and providing consultations and analysis to them.

Also, thanks to Eurasia for his explanations.

Again, we can confirm that there is no law prohibiting the creation of a prosecutor general. We are objecting to the abusive powers granted to that single position obviously abusive of one state's sovereignty. New Tarajan may explain that the prosecutor general is just assisting the Court, but that can never hide the fact that by itself, it is abusive and clear violations of ones' sovereignty especially the provisions of that very bill.

Eurussia believes that such is unacceptable.

Great Eurussia Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:59 pm

Planitan Commonwealth wrote:I give support of this bill, and I agree with E&A every time you join a organization (which is every single one in existence) you are handing over some of your sovereignty

If so, what specifics of sovereignty are these?

Europe and Asia Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:11 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Planitan Commonwealth wrote:I give support of this bill, and I agree with E&A every time you join a organization (which is every single one in existence) you are handing over some of your sovereignty

If so, what specifics of sovereignty are these?

Every WA state is beholden to laws passed by Parliament and the Council. If you join an international organization, then if that organization decides on a course of action, the individual nations comprising it must follow.

New Tarajan Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:11 am

I wish to answer once again to the Eurussian statements.

First of all, I wish to clarify the sense of the statements expressed by Eurasia because, evidently, Eurussia misunderstood them: joining international organizations it's a violation of the CONCEPT of sovereignty. Of course any country joins them by its own free will; but, at the same time, the consequences of this decision are often against national sovereignty (as said now by Eurasia itself), and many times the same countries which even founded the organization at the end found themselves fighting against such supposed violations, exactly like in this case.
The Court of Justice has been constituted through the Constitution, thus through the will of avery WA Member. However, this means also that the WA Members will see their national sovereignty violated when such an external body issues a verdict.
And I keep not to see the incredible violations caused by the existence of a Prosecutor General: its position is not abusive, and I cannot imagine how collecting evidences is an abusive power, honestly.
A country could still have the possibility to refuse any kind of cooperation with the CoJ or the Prosecutor.

Great Eurussia Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:17 am

New Tarajan wrote:
A country could still have the possibility to refuse any kind of cooperation with the CoJ or the Prosecutor.

Again, if this is the case, Eurussia requests that such assurance is clearly stipulated in the bill. Also, and again, in the eyes of the Constitution, the judicial power and the right of a state to exercise its sovereignty are equal. We are the Constitution, since Eurussia also authored it, supported it, voted for it, respected it, and always uphelds it above any other international law.

Europe and Asia Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:19 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
A country could still have the possibility to refuse any kind of cooperation with the CoJ or the Prosecutor.

Again, if this is the case, Eurussia requests that such assurance is clearly stipulated in the bill. Also, and again, in the eyes of the Constitution, the judicial power and the right of a state to exercise its sovereignty are equal. We are the Constitution, since Eurussia also authored it, supported it, voted for it, respected it, and always uphelds it above any other international law.

Again, you're missing he point. What New Tarajan is saying is this: you can refuse to cooperate with the COJ or the Prosecutor, but they still can investigate you. Essentially, you can deny something exists, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

New Tarajan Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:20 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
A country could still have the possibility to refuse any kind of cooperation with the CoJ or the Prosecutor.

Again, if this is the case, Eurussia requests that such assurance is clearly stipulated in the bill. Also, and again, in the eyes of the Constitution, the judicial power and the right of a state to exercise its sovereignty are equal. We are the Constitution, since Eurussia also authored it, supported it, voted for it, respected it, and always uphelds it above any other international law.

If the two rights are equal, your entire list of objectsion is void.

Anyway, in order to end once and for all this discussion, I'll add a new article to the bill.

Great Eurussia Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:21 am

New Tarajan wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:
A country could still have the possibility to refuse any kind of cooperation with the CoJ or the Prosecutor.

Again, if this is the case, Eurussia requests that such assurance is clearly stipulated in the bill. Also, and again, in the eyes of the Constitution, the judicial power and the right of a state to exercise its sovereignty are equal. We are the Constitution, since Eurussia also authored it, supported it, voted for it, respected it, and always uphelds it above any other international law.

If the two rights are equal, your entire list of objectsion is void.

Anyway, in order to end once and for all this discussion, I'll add a new article to the bill.

We will look into it.

New Tarajan Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:25 am

I've just added a clause to Article 8 about it.
Now, can we move forward?

Great Eurussia Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:38 am

New Tarajan wrote:I've just added a clause to Article 8 about it.
Now, can we move forward?

Eurussia is almost satisfied. However, we request that it must clearly stipulate "the Prosecutor General and the Court." If it won't be too much to ask.

New Tarajan Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:43 am

Done.

About your answer: to ensure the neutrality of the Prosecutor, and not to overload excessively the job of the judges. Moreover, I personally asked to the Court about this point, and their opinion was that it would have been better to have a third person with such a charge.

Great Eurussia Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:48 am

New Tarajan wrote:Done.

About your answer: to ensure the neutrality of the Prosecutor, and not to overload excessively the job of the judges. Moreover, I personally asked to the Court about this point, and their opinion was that it would have been better to have a third person with such a charge.

If that is the case, isn't it the Court is already neutral by itself? Furthermore, forgive us if we might have missed any point. Is the Prosecutor General can only act upon the orders of the Court? If so, is it stipulated in the bill?

Sponsored content

(Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

(Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act

Re: (Approved) Judiciary Investigation Act