WORLD ALLIANCE COURT OF JUSTICE

Both Zakiristan and I both received that telegram as well. Due to the nature of the accusation, I asked Vaticanosia to post screencaps of these alleged messages from Eurussia. He has not been online since, but I will alert the Court immediately if I get a reply.

Thank you, Vendoland. Eurussia, we also expect any telegrams you have from Vaticonasia.

Am I cleared to go back and resume my position in the SC?

New-Zealand wrote:Am I cleared to go back and resume my position in the SC?

You have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Security Council.

vendoland wrote:Both Zakiristan and I both received that telegram as well. Due to the nature of the accusation, I asked Vaticanosia to post screencaps of these alleged messages from Eurussia. He has not been online since, but I will alert the Court immediately if I get a reply.

We deny the allegations of Vaticanosia. We haven't receive any telegrams from the said nation ever since nor we exchange telegrams with him. If he has proofs, compel him to show them to you, if there is really any.

With this, I have decided to ban him since he left the region already before I won't be able to ban him anymore after the next few hours. If this Court find my actions improper and with acceptable justification, I will lift the ban.

Vaticanosia is just destabilizing our region. Therefore, he shouldn't be welcomed here.

With respect to this Court, Eurussia has exercised its powers under Article 7.
In favor of banjecting 23 confirmed puppet states from evidence of Vendoland.

The deadline set by the Court in the case of Vaticanosia v. New Zealand has elapsed. New Zealand has responded to the summons and pressed official charges against Vaticanosia. Vaticanosia has declined to respond and has left the region entirely.

In the Court's case against Vaticanosia, the following information has been provided:

Vaticonosia arrived in the World Alliance approximately end of November/early December with the following nations:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=negerias
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=pandorras
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=lebananon
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=valenzuelas
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sierra_leons
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=zambai
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=yeloland
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=butania
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=popopoland
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=quril_islands
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=tyonyang
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=sobyet_unyon

All nations were founded around the same time, arrived in the World Alliance at the same time (shortly after founding) and have been completely inactive since then. Vaticanosia had also been inactive until January 28th, when he made a map claim and then weighed in on the Constitutional referendum. Vaticanosia voted on the constitutional referendum at the same time as ASEAN Community, a verified puppet with a similar history of previous inactivity.

In light of this information and the several inflammatory comments made against New Zealand, Eurussia, and Broatia without providing any sort of evidence, the Court affirms Vaticanosia's ban.

Though Vaticanosia is no longer charging New Zealand with violating Article 5 of the World Alliance Constitution, the Court feels it is necessary to clarify whether or not the World Assembly Delegate position does in fact count toward Article 5's 'no more than one position' clause.

Though Article 6 of the Constitution does provide a description of the power and responsibilities of the World Assembly Delegate in relatively vague terms, it does not provide any specific responsibility towards World Assembly nations or any nation of the region. In fact, in the history of the region, the World Assembly Delegate has not been tasked with any specific responsibility other than an outline of ideal conduct.

The other point to consider is that the World Assembly Delegate is not elected in a traditional sense. The position is simply taken by whomever has the most endorsements. This concept is fundamentally different to any other position in our regional government, which are elected by popular vote of all member nations every month.

With those thoughts in mind, it is the Court's belief that the World Assembly Delegate position, in its current incarnation, does not count towards the clause in Article 5. If the powers and responsibilities of the position change or are expanded in any way, the Court reserves the right to re-visit this decision and decide if the new position counts towards the Article 5 restriction.

As Chief Justice of this court, I felt that the case of Vaticanosia v. New Zealand needed to be heard first due to the inflammatory nature of Vaticanosia's numerous accusations against several members of the region. Now, I ask that the Court hear a case of the utmost importance to this region.

It is my contention that the World Alliance Constitution was not properly ratified according to the guidelines that Eurussia had set forth and thus all measures of the Constitution are not valid until it has been successfully passed.

Though I believe I can remain fair and impartial in this case despite my personal beliefs on the matter, I also believe it is in the best interest of both this Court and the region at large if I recuse myself from this case. The Constitution does not offer guidance as to when and how Justices can recuse themselves, but I ask Schorr to temporarily appoint a Justice to sit with my colleagues and hear this case.

vendoland wrote:Though Vaticanosia is no longer charging New Zealand with violating Article 5 of the World Alliance Constitution, the Court feels it is necessary to clarify whether or not the World Assembly Delegate position does in fact count toward Article 5's 'no more than one position' clause.

Though Article 6 of the Constitution does provide a description of the power and responsibilities of the World Assembly Delegate in relatively vague terms, it does not provide any specific responsibility towards World Assembly nations or any nation of the region. In fact, in the history of the region, the World Assembly Delegate has not been tasked with any specific responsibility other than an outline of ideal conduct.

The other point to consider is that the World Assembly Delegate is not elected in a traditional sense. The position is simply taken by whomever has the most endorsements. This concept is fundamentally different to any other position in our regional government, which are elected by popular vote of all member nations every month.

With those thoughts in mind, it is the Court's belief that the World Assembly Delegate position, in its current incarnation, does not count towards the clause in Article 5. If the powers and responsibilities of the position change or are expanded in any way, the Court reserves the right to re-visit this decision and decide if the new position counts towards the Article 5 restriction.

The Eurussian Government officially requests this Court to clarify the root cause of the case of Vaticanosia vs New Zealand so as not to cause any further questions of law in the future where the "World Assembly Delegate under the auspices of the Constitution do constitute itself as part of the World Alliance Government according to its definition explicitly defined in the charter."

Though, this case might put the credibility of parties involved in danger, still, the case directly against the parties have been dropped, therefore, better that this Court clarify the question of law at hand which was mentioned above.

I believe the Court stated their position clearly in the published decision, but I'll happily clarify.

Though the World Assembly Delegate position is listed in the Constitution, it does not have any particular responsibilities. No Delegate in the history of our region has never conferred with other World Assembly nations to determine how to vote, has never introduced legislation to the World Assembly by itself or on behalf of another nation, or taken any other initiative on behalf of the World Assembly nations. Because there are no real expectations for the position or standards of conduct the World Assembly Delegate has been required to follow, in addition to the method in which the Delegate is selected (by holding the most endorsements, which can be given or withdrawn virtually at any time), the Court ruled that the World Assembly Delegate position is not a member of the regional government and thus Article 5 does not apply to the position.

With regards to the last line of the decision, it is the Court's belief that if the position changes by introducing definitive rules as to the duties and responsibilities of the Delegate position (via constitutional amendment), the Court would have to re-examine the decision and determine whether those new responsibilities and powers would change the nature of the position and thus make Article 5's restrictions applicable.

With that said, the Court can now focus its attention on the case at hand. I prefer In Re World Alliance Constitution, but I'm afraid Vendoland v. World Alliance is more applicable.

Though I intend to recuse myself from this case, my last act will be to request Schorr appoint a temporary Justice so he/she can sit with my colleagues and start the case. If it pleases the Court, I intend to present evidence to support my claim during the hearing.

vendoland wrote:With that said, the Court can now focus its attention on the case at hand. I prefer In Re World Alliance Constitution, but I'm afraid Vendoland v. World Alliance is more applicable.

Though I intend to recuse myself from this case, my last act will be to request Schorr appoint a temporary Justice so he/she can sit with my colleagues and start the case. If it pleases the Court, I intend to present evidence to support my claim during the hearing.

Hm it shall e nice to see what you have..i support it give us your best.

vendoland wrote:With that said, the Court can now focus its attention on the case at hand. I prefer In Re World Alliance Constitution, but I'm afraid Vendoland v. World Alliance is more applicable.

Though I intend to recuse myself from this case, my last act will be to request Schorr appoint a temporary Justice so he/she can sit with my colleagues and start the case. If it pleases the Court, I intend to present evidence to support my claim during the hearing.

Technically, a temporary Justice is impossible since it is not allowed under the WA Constitution. This is just like the request of New Zealand when he resigned from the Security Council. His request for interim while his case is being heard is rejected.

That is why now, he has to go to the process of nomination and confirmation much like the case in this Court. You should resign if you wish to pursue a case while being a party and have another Justice to be re-appointed in your place.

vendoland wrote:I believe the Court stated their position clearly in the published decision, but I'll happily clarify.

Though the World Assembly Delegate position is listed in the Constitution, it does not have any particular responsibilities. No Delegate in the history of our region has never conferred with other World Assembly nations to determine how to vote, has never introduced legislation to the World Assembly by itself or on behalf of another nation, or taken any other initiative on behalf of the World Assembly nations. Because there are no real expectations for the position or standards of conduct the World Assembly Delegate has been required to follow, in addition to the method in which the Delegate is selected (by holding the most endorsements, which can be given or withdrawn virtually at any time), the Court ruled that the World Assembly Delegate position is not a member of the regional government and thus Article 5 does not apply to the position.

With regards to the last line of the decision, it is the Court's belief that if the position changes by introducing definitive rules as to the duties and responsibilities of the Delegate position (via constitutional amendment), the Court would have to re-examine the decision and determine whether those new responsibilities and powers would change the nature of the position and thus make Article 5's restrictions applicable.

The Eurussian Government, as per its understanding with the Constitution, believes that with the use of the words "sole representative of the regional government" means that the WA Delegate is an ambassador of the region as a whole just like an Ambassador to a country appointed by a head of state which in effect is part of the government of the appointing nation. With this, it is our understanding that the WA Delegacy is now part of the WA Government based on its defined duties and responsibilities under the charter.

The Eurussian Government appeals to the Court for further clarification.

It is the opinion of the Court that the powers and responsibilities of the World Alliance Delegate, as outlined in Article 6 of the Constitution, are not sufficient enough to consider it a part of the regional government. Therefore, the position is not governed by the Article 5 restriction.

The position has never been made responsible to other World Assembly nations, let alone the whole region. Other than a verbose yet vague description of the position, it assigns no substantive responsibilities. However, if an amendment is passed that changes the powers and responsibilities of the World Assembly Delegate, the Court would then determine whether the new powers and responsibilities made the position beholden to the Article 5 restriction.

That is the informed collective decision of the Court. If anyone is unsatisfied with this decision, they are encouraged to write and submit an amendment that would clarify the powers and responsibilities of the World Assembly Delegate.

Great Eurussia wrote:Technically, a temporary Justice is impossible since it is not allowed under the WA Constitution. This is just like the request of New Zealand when he resigned from the Security Council. His request for interim while his case is being heard is rejected.

That is why now, he has to go to the process of nomination and confirmation much like the case in this Court. You should resign if you wish to pursue a case while being a party and have another Justice to be re-appointed in your place.

If that is the case and I must choose between remaining as Chief Justice or submitting this case, I resign from the position of Chief Justice of the World Alliance Court of Justice. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as Chief Justice, but I believe the good of the region must come before my own personal comfort and goals.

vendoland wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:Technically, a temporary Justice is impossible since it is not allowed under the WA Constitution. This is just like the request of New Zealand when he resigned from the Security Council. His request for interim while his case is being heard is rejected.

That is why now, he has to go to the process of nomination and confirmation much like the case in this Court. You should resign if you wish to pursue a case while being a party and have another Justice to be re-appointed in your place.

If that is the case and I must choose between remaining as Chief Justice or submitting this case, I resign from the position of Chief Justice of the World Alliance Court of Justice. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as Chief Justice, but I believe the good of the region must come before my own personal comfort and goals.

Your resignation has been noted. Thank you.

Great Eurussia wrote:

vendoland wrote:I believe the Court stated their position clearly in the published decision, but I'll happily clarify.

Though the World Assembly Delegate position is listed in the Constitution, it does not have any particular responsibilities. No Delegate in the history of our region has never conferred with other World Assembly nations to determine how to vote, has never introduced legislation to the World Assembly by itself or on behalf of another nation, or taken any other initiative on behalf of the World Assembly nations. Because there are no real expectations for the position or standards of conduct the World Assembly Delegate has been required to follow, in addition to the method in which the Delegate is selected (by holding the most endorsements, which can be given or withdrawn virtually at any time), the Court ruled that the World Assembly Delegate position is not a member of the regional government and thus Article 5 does not apply to the position.

With regards to the last line of the decision, it is the Court's belief that if the position changes by introducing definitive rules as to the duties and responsibilities of the Delegate position (via constitutional amendment), the Court would have to re-examine the decision and determine whether those new responsibilities and powers would change the nature of the position and thus make Article 5's restrictions applicable.

The Eurussian Government, as per its understanding with the Constitution, believes that with the use of the words "sole representative of the regional government" means that the WA Delegate is an ambassador of the region as a whole just like an Ambassador to a country appointed by a head of state which in effect is part of the government of the appointing nation. With this, it is our understanding that the WA Delegacy is now part of the WA Government based on its defined duties and responsibilities under the charter.

The Eurussian Government appeals to the Court for further clarification.

We reiterate further clarification from the Court of Justice.

The United Empire of Novo Canuckia, at the request of the Principality of Grand Longueville, would like to file a case to determine whether the banjection of Albion & Grand Longueville was in violation of the regional constitution.

Should this case succeed, we also request that a case to banject the aforementioned nations be opened.

OoC: Basically, the first issue is whether or not the way they were banjected is allowed by the regional constitution. This IS NOT whether they should or should not be banjected.

The second issue (which may be merged into the first case if one of the Justices can think of a reasonable way in which to do so) is whether they should in fact be banjected from the region.

Novo Canuckia wrote:The United Empire of Novo Canuckia, at the request of the Principality of Grand Longueville, would like to file a case to determine whether the banjection of Albion & Grand Longueville was in violation of the regional constitution.

Should this case succeed, we also request that a case to banject the aforementioned nations be opened.

OoC: Basically, the first issue is whether or not the way they were banjected is allowed by the regional constitution. This IS NOT whether they should or should not be banjected.

The second issue (which may be merged into the first case if one of the Justices can think of a reasonable way in which to do so) is whether they should in fact be banjected from the region.

This is a complicated case, but I guess we have to address them one by one.
Feel free to create the thread with the Court of Justice.

AND both of them must be present!

What i think is the Interested part here is that the C.J. never voted or discussed this matter and the ban was totally not from one of us.

the S.C. was reaching beyond their powers in our bushiness and should not have done this therefor i an still waiting for some apology. however Dromoda were in favor of the ban because they ( Albion & Grand Longueville )interfered in a aggressive and intolerant way to nations who were sending their views.


you can agree with me or not.but this is my opinion.