Re: (Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

New Tarajan Mon May 26, 2014 7:42 am

OOC: It was you who began to use separate IC and OOC statements...I simply adapted myself to that.

Europe and Asia Mon May 26, 2014 8:27 am

Europe and Asia wrote:If the defense has finished, the court will close oral arguments.

Great Eurussia Mon May 26, 2014 9:56 am

Europe and Asia wrote:
Europe and Asia wrote:If the defense has finished, the court will close oral arguments.

Eurussia rests its case as we have presented all our IC & OOC arguments with all the evidences and supporting arguments, despite the failure of the prosecuting party to counter all in IC & OOC, since Eurussia is confused what do address, so we did the honor to address all concerns in both worlds.

Thank you.

Europe and Asia Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:48 am

Next time, just say "Yes, your honor."

The court will issue a verdict soon.

Great Eurussia Sun Jun 01, 2014 1:49 am

Europe and Asia wrote:Next time, just say "Yes, your honor."

The court will issue a verdict soon.

OOC: lol I'll take note of that!

Europe and Asia Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:37 am

The Court has reached a verdict:

Due to the dissolution of the Ausavian/Ceveztrian Government, the treaty signed by Eurussia is rendered null and void, thus voiding any territorial claims that Eurussia has to the former Ausavian/Ceveztrian land. The map is to be updated accordingly to remove all territory registered to Ausavia/Ceveztria (Eurussia), as well as any Ceveztrian/Ausavian colonial territories still present on the map (OOC: Will post those in the Map Forum later).

OOC: In regards to the unavoidable Eurussian arguments against this case, I will inform both parties of the following points:

Citing Wikipedia or any other source is not permissible. In the WA, for all intents and purposes, once a nation has dissolved, all treaties are void.
Ceveztria dissolved. The Treaty is void.
The Court will not recognize any "But he said that I could" arguments.
This case is not open for appeal.
Most importantly, there will be no posting of "We are saddened by the supposed impartiality of the court [insert other stuff here] but respect the verdict." Either say "We thank the court for its verdict" or don't say anything.

Thank you. This case is Resolved

Great Eurussia Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:51 am

Europe and Asia wrote:The Court has reached a verdict:

Due to the dissolution of the Ausavian/Ceveztrian Government, the treaty signed by Eurussia is rendered null and void, thus voiding any territorial claims that Eurussia has to the former Ausavian/Ceveztrian land. The map is to be updated accordingly to remove all territory registered to Ausavia/Ceveztria (Eurussia), as well as any Ceveztrian/Ausavian colonial territories still present on the map (OOC: Will post those in the Map Forum later).

OOC: In regards to the unavoidable Eurussian arguments against this case, I will inform both parties of the following points:

Citing Wikipedia or any other source is not permissible. In the WA, for all intents and purposes, once a nation has dissolved, all treaties are void.
Ceveztria dissolved. The Treaty is void.
The Court will not recognize any "But he said that I could" arguments.
This case is not open for appeal.
Most importantly, there will be no posting of "We are saddened by the supposed impartiality of the court [insert other stuff here] but respect the verdict." Either say "We thank the court for its verdict" or don't say anything.

Thank you. This case is Resolved

The Eurussian Government invokes our right to appeal. First, how can the Court address the fact that Ceveztria or Ausavia has technically been dissolved after the Treaty of Annexation was signed? Before they were even 'dissolved' further by the Court of Justice?

Furthermore, OOC speaking, how can the Court also address the fact that Ceveztria or Ausavia has transferred all his lands to Eurussia willingly, even before it was ejected by the Court of Justice?

As much as we would like to recognize or honor this decision of the Court of Justice, we thought all along that the issue was the 'temporary thing' which we have perfectly addressed in all aspects. And since, this decision has now suddenly focused on the validity of the Treaty, we request the honourable tribunal to address it in IC/RP/OOC which we were able to strongly address.

Thank you.

New-Zealand Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:53 am

Thread locked under instructions of Chief Justice.

Great Eurussia Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:56 am

New-Zealand wrote:Thread locked under instructions of Chief Justice.

OOC: Don't be too hasty, under the Revised Judicial Protocol Act, any Party to a case can always appeal :-)

Thank you.

New-Zealand Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:22 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:Thread locked under instructions of Chief Justice.

OOC: Don't be too hasty, under the Revised Judicial Protocol Act, any Party to a case can always appeal :-)
Thank you.

OOC: I just got a TG from Eurasia asking me to lock the thread. I was only just following instructions.

Great Eurussia Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:57 pm

New-Zealand wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:Thread locked under instructions of Chief Justice.

OOC: Don't be too hasty, under the Revised Judicial Protocol Act, any Party to a case can always appeal :-)
Thank you.

OOC: I just got a TG from Eurasia asking me to lock the thread. I was only just following instructions.

OOC: Yeah, sorry! I don't meant to accuse anyone of anything. Just stating my position in the case!

Europe and Asia Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:13 am

Firstly Eurussia, I specifically ordered New-Zealand to lock this thread. Obviously you have unlocked it, which could be viewed as an abuse of power, considering you are a member of this case and therefore are not neutral and impartial. Keep that in mind.

Secondly, we already know your opinion. There is absolutely no need to argue with New Zealand here. I had the thread locked. I would have had it unlocked, at a later date, when it was necessary.

Thirdly and finally, your request for appeal is granted. You have 24 hours to post your position, again, in a clear, concise manner without useless verbiage. Thank you.

Great Eurussia Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:41 am

Europe and Asia wrote:Firstly Eurussia, I specifically ordered New-Zealand to lock this thread. Obviously you have unlocked it, which could be viewed as an abuse of power, considering you are a member of this case and therefore are not neutral and impartial. Keep that in mind.

Secondly, we already know your opinion. There is absolutely no need to argue with New Zealand here. I had the thread locked. I would have had it unlocked, at a later date, when it was necessary.

Thirdly and finally, your request for appeal is granted. You have 24 hours to post your position, again, in a clear, concise manner without useless verbiage. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We apologize for any form or kind of inconvenience this may have caused. We will submit our formal position later on. Thanks again.

Europe and Asia Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:05 pm

Then because you haven't submitted an official request, I expect all Ceveztria and Ausavain territories occupied by Eurussia removed before the next update.

Great Eurussia Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:59 pm

Europe and Asia wrote:Then because you haven't submitted an official request, I expect all Ceveztria and Ausavain territories occupied by Eurussia removed before the next update.

What?

Empire of Articmainia Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:05 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Europe and Asia wrote:Then because you haven't submitted an official request, I expect all Ceveztria and Ausavain territories occupied by Eurussia removed before the next update.

What?

Look I know I have no business in the court of justice decision but I feel that, that was not fair at all. Just saying Surprised

New Tarajan Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:24 am

The problem is, if I can interrupt: the Court gave to Eurussia the possibility to appeal by presenting a motivated request in 24 hours. It did not happen, so the Court enforced the previous verdict.

Empire of Articmainia Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:41 am

New Tarajan wrote:The problem is, if I can interrupt: the Court gave to Eurussia the possibility to appeal by presenting a motivated request in 24 hours. It did not happen, so the Court enforced the previous verdict.

Yeah we tried that for the Kennyland government but he never responded and Jillin island is still under Kennyland control. That's why I feel that was not fair. Eurussia should not have to give up any of his land at all.

Great Eurussia Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:12 am

New Tarajan wrote:The problem is, if I can interrupt: the Court gave to Eurussia the possibility to appeal by presenting a motivated request in 24 hours. It did not happen, so the Court enforced the previous verdict.

The 24 Hour Period has not yet lapsed right? So why the haste of saying we didn't respond? Why would we even bother to appeal if we are not going to respond?

Don't I have a personal life to attend to?

Do not worry we are preparing our position.

Great Eurussia Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:23 am

Europe and Asia wrote:
Thirdly and finally, your request for appeal is granted. You have 24 hours to post your position, again, in a clear, concise manner without useless verbiage. Thank you.

Eurussia officially issues its position on the appeal.

Issues,

1) Initial verdict, the Treaty of Annexation is deemed null and void after the WA Court of Justice dissolved the Ceveztrian/Ausavian government.

2) Initial verdict, citing wikipedia and any other source is not permissible. Because in the WA, once a nation is dissolved all treaties are deemed void.

Counter Arguments,

1) The Treaty of Annexation signed between Eurussia and the former Ceveztria is very clear with all its contents and provisions. Not to mention that it was all in good faith as the former President, then thr Governor General, went to Moscow to personally sign the Treaty with us. Further proof is the same evidence presented by the prosecution on Evidence N.2 which clearly represents Governor General Joe Biden speaking for Eurussia.

TREATY OF ANNEXATION

1) Ceveztria revokes its Treaty of Friendship with Eurussia.
2) Ceveztria relinquishes its sovereignty and territories to Eurussia.
3) Ceveztria recognizes the absolute authority of the Emperor of Eurussia.
4) Ceveztria recognizes the absolute authority of the Eurussian Government.
5) Ceveztria recognizes that it shall become an inherent territory of Eurussia.

Upon signing of the Treaty, its contents are effective right there and then, and relies on the contents of the Treaty on its functions, interpretations, and effect.

a) Effect, both Parties revoked their Friendship Treaty thus removing their recognition on their respective sovereignty.

b) Effect, Ceveztria had relinquished its sovereingty and all territories to Eurussia.

c) Effect, Ceveztria recognized the absolute authority of the Eurussian Emperor and his government.

d) Effect, Ceveztria acknowledged that will then become an internal territory of Eurusdia.

e) Overall effect, the Treaty of Annexation immediately dissolved Ceveztria, which is irreversible since the absolute authority was transferred to Eurussia.

f) The Court's decision of dissolving Ceveztria came after the Treaty, hence, it has no effect since the Ceveztria it knows is already non-existing and defunct.

g) The Court's decision of dissolving 'Ausavia' is simply impossible since the Duchy of Ausavia came into being after the former Ceveztria had become an internal territory of Eurussia and as such, dissolving a sub-national entity of a sovereign state, without its consent, is a direct violation of the Court to the WA Constitution.

h) CONCLUSION, we believe there is no way to dissolve an already dissolved political entity on this matter.

2) If citing 'outside sources' is not permissible such as Wikipedia, where did the Court got its definition or provision saying that "all treaties in the WA are deemed void if a nation is dissolved"??? As far as we believe, there is no provision of such found in the WA Constitution, neither in any existing laws passed by the WA Parliament. Lastly, we do believe that the Court has no law making powers.

CONCLUSION, we believe there is no way the Court can invalidate a treaty with the absence of consideration on its contents and provisions much more without a basis in the Constitution or any existing international law.

Hence, we suggest that we should craft an international law governing the conduct and effects of treaties among nations to be able to guide as well the Court on its decisions on the same matter in the future.

Reservations,

Eurussia makes this reservations as part of our appeal since in the charges brought against us were about the 'temporary thing' and 'treaty validity.' And with the vague way of answering the charges, we continue to uphold our IC/RP/OOC/Real Life Arguments. But we do not expect them to be discussed nor considered anymore since we are now zeroing into the initial verdict under motion for reconsideration, where we are now focused.

Eurussia rests its case. We trust the tribunal for a fair verdict in accordance to the WA Constitution and pertinent international laws. Thank you very much!

Europe and Asia Wed Jun 04, 2014 4:51 am

We request the position of the prosecution, New Tarajan.

New Tarajan Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:08 am

Thank you, Your Honour.

The position of New Tarajan still is the same we have expressed at the very beginning of this trial, but we wish to repeat it here once again for the sake of the Court, answering to the points presented by the defense for the appeal.

1) Concerning the first point expressed by the defense, we can simply state that the Treaty of Annexation, signed by Ceveztria/Ausavia with Eurussia, is deemed null and void because, as explained by Ceveztria/Ausavia himself, through the already presented Evidence N.1, the annexation had a goal, a very specific one. It is unuseful to repeat it once again here.
Thus, since the dissolution of Ceveztria/Ausavia rendered impossible the achievement of such a goal, the Treaty of Annexation, under the clause rebus sic stantibus, automatically ceased all its effects. Moreover, since a contract (and a treaty is a contract) rests on the ground of two wills meeting each other, since the will of one of the parties is no more applicable, the contract is void.
What rendered this Treaty of Annexation different from any other, thus eliminating the objections of the defense, is that one of the wills clearly expressed that it was temporary, with a specific goal, which is now more attainable.

Moreover, the claim made by the defense, which would consider a violation of WA Constitution an eventual dissolution of the Eurussia domination over Ceveztria/Ausavia, is unreasonable: indeed, following such a way of thought, this Court would be forced always to accept the fait accompli, which is obviously and clearly a non-sense. It was Eurussian fault not to hear all the objections to the annexations many countries, including New Tarajan, made since the very beginning, thus the problem of loosing part of its territory belongs to Eurussia only.
Moreover, the continuous transmission of news about Ceveztria/Ausavia by Eurussian media clearly shows that there is no respect, on Moscow side, for this trial.

2) For the second point, since it is not directed against the prosecutor, but against the Court, we will leave this issue to the judgement of the honourable judges.

We would only like to remind Eurussia that, previously, New Tarajan itself proposed a law which could have resolved this issue once and for all, obviously not in the way Eurussia could have preferred, but with full respect of the WA Constitution.

Finally, only a little consideration: we would like to remind Eurussia that he himself had already proposed a violation of WA Constitution rights about the Kennyland issue, considered to be "a little price" to pay for peace. We would like to ask to Eurussia why this principle strangely enough should not be applied to Eurussia itself. However, since this is our personal consideration, the Court is free not to consider it.
Thank you.

Europe and Asia Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:18 am

Thank you. A verdict will be reached tomorrow.

Europe and Asia Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:43 pm

The Court has reached a verdict.

The verdict stands. Ceveztrian and Ausavian territories owned by Eurussia are to be removed from the map. The court cites its evidence below.

Eurussia claimed that Ceveztria voluntarily disolved when it signed the treaty. Not so. News Posts were continued to be made, and Ceveztria just had an "(EU)" placed above its head on the map. Eurussia had still recognized Ceveztria existed. Thus, with the dissolution of the nation, only Eurussia is still agreeing to the treaty. Therefore, the treaty is revoked and the Ceveztrian/Ausavian territories removed.

There will be no appeal, as this is already an appeal. This case is closed. The Court expects that the territories will be removed from the map by the next update.

New Tarajan Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:29 pm

We wish to thank the Court for upholding its verdict.

New Tarajan, seeing the response of the Court, wishes also to officially ask Eurussia to announce its withdrawal from Ceveztria/Ausavia in 24 hours.

We humbly request to the Court the permission, as prosecutors in this case, to oversee over the execution of the verdict and eventually to enforce it, or at least to officially empower the WAAF to do so.
Thank you.

Sponsored content

(Concluded) New Tarajan vs Eurussia