[GA] ICJ Case #004

[Odinson]

@Moe

 

[Odinson]

After some time had passed, Olhouser slammed his gavel. "I hereby call this session of the International Court of Justice to order. The court reporter will begin the record. We are convened to hear case #004, Chapuis v. President Romero. The defendant has failed to appear, and I have no evidence that he is in route. He has failed to show up for this trial, therefor in accordance with Article 1, Chapter 3, Section 8, myself and the other justices are no longer bound to the assumption of innocence for the accused. In order to exhaust all avenues of leniency, I will extend President DeSilva's time to arrive until the end of the prosecution's presentation of their case."

Olhouser looked at the French, "Counselor, you may present your case."

 

[Moe]

https://modernnations.com/threads/ga-icj-case-003.5546/page-2#post-21690

Minister Desilva Has departed for The Hague.

@Odinson@Naio90 @Ellie @Dutchy @HeadlessSeeker@John

 

[Ellie]

Since no news of the Brazilian President arriving had reached them, the French Ambassador would stand with her evidence in hand.

"Thank you, Justices.

France has brought to the International Court of Justice's attention to the violation of the Global Assembly's founding principles, mainly point one, two, four, five, and six. 'To promote the human rights and equality of the human man, regardless of their nation or gender.' 'To prevent warfare and violence from bringing destruction and pillage to nations and it's citizens.' 'To promote and protect international law across the globe and ensure justice is preserved.' 'To work together globally to promote real social and economic change.' Lastly, 'To promote tolerance and peace.' As France sees it, President Victor Romero has broken all of these principles and as the head and representative of a government, this can't stand.

Our first exhibit of these broken principals is President Victor Romero's broadcasted speech on the then situation with Sweden. We have a recording of this speech to be played before the Court."

With the Justices' permission, the recording of the entire speech would be played, lasting only a few minutes. The French Ambassador would replay the recording once it was done and paused at the moments where the French government believed the President broke the principals.

"As for what he spoke of beforehand, we can talk about that shortly, what I want to focus on is his last sentence, quote 'Who really cares about Sweden? Or that turd floating in the South China Sea, Taiwan? I surely do not.' unquote. To France, this sentence alone breaks principles one, five, and six. It proves that the Brazilian President is not in favor of promoting the human rights and equality of the human man, regardless of their nation or gender, nor in favor of working together globally to promote real social and economic change, or in promoting tolerance and peace."

The French Ambassador would then play a video that had been on the Brazilian governments Twitter feed.

"This is simply more evidence of the previously broken principles, which I will quote 'Little Taiwan has called our country a Junta, even though I was just elected two years ago. Perhaps that Little Turd in the South China Sea should check it's history about being a military Junta. Either way, we will keep moving forward with our allies, and moving Brazil Forward. And there is little Turdwain can say about it or do about it. Turdwain was ignored by many countries until their recent agreement with China to take up the. This is a country so shameless they even sold a Southern port of theirs to Portugal.' unquote."

The French Ambassador would then play a recording of an interview between the Brazilian President and a Taiwanese journalist.

"Quote 'Racism? Towards whom? Europeans, Asians? As per usual for your Draconian State reporting. And you are a stupid, asshole. I was freely elected two years ago. I can prove it because I still allow Taiwanese journalists to live and prosper, which you do not reciprocate. You are freer here than you are in your homeland.' Unquote. Simply more evidence of the Brazilian President breaking principles one, five, and six."

The French Ambassador would then move onto the other principles which the Brazilian President had broken.

"The following evidence gathered on President Victor Romero was gathered on Brazil's statement on their 'Embassy Closings & Trade Route Cancellations'. This directly references France."

The French Ambassador would then play a short clip of a Brazilian spokesperson's announcement.

"The context of this spokesperson's statement was due to France advising Brazil to keep their ambassadors, diplomats, and citizens inside their embassy in Paris as the Yellow Vest protests were and still are far too dense for the French government to safely escort the Brazilians out of Paris without harming our own citizens. In return, the spokesperson, who never would've been able to say this without the given 'okay', stated: 'If any Brazilians are harmed whilst trying to get out of your Yellow-Vested country, you will pay dearly. Especially, since we guaranteed your citizens' safe passage during this diplomatic spat. I repeat, if any Brazilian staff is hurt or injured whilst attempting to leave France, it is on you. And since the Brazilians, have nothing to do with the Yellow Vest movement, that is your social problem, not ours. If our citizens are harmed. You will be harmed as well. We will have warships within your vicinity within a week.'

France said nothing more than advising the Brazilians to advise their ambassadors, diplomats, and citizens to remain safely in their embassy where it was safe. In response, they told us, through a broadcasted announcement, that they would declare war, as though what we said was a threat instead of a simple warning made through the sheer concern of Brazilian citizens. Regardless, France believes that this breaks principles two and four; preventing warfare and violence from bringing destruction and pillage to nations and it's citizens and promoting and protecting international law across the globe and ensure justice is preserved."

"We have further evidence in the form of witnesses from Italy, Sweden, and Taiwan. If the Justices would allow it."

@Odinson @Moe @Naio90 @John @JJSmithJr @Dutchy @HeadlessSeeker

 

[Odinson]

Olhouser nodded at the ambassador and then looked at the Dutch guards in the back. "Permit the Italian, Swedish, and Taiwanese witnesses to enter the chamber."

Before entering the chamber, the witnesses were told that they were to only answer questions by the French for now. The prosecution was free to begin asking questions.

@Ellie
@Logan
@Connor
@Sumit

 

[Odinson]

@Ellie
@Logan
@Connor
@Sumit

 

[Deleted member 5]

Taiwanese Witness Ms. Hannah Quinlivan would say, "We would like to take oath to the Taiwanese Flag before we start."

 

[Odinson]

All witnesses and defendants took the oath to the object or book of their choosing (depending on their national customs and laws), including the Taiwanese. The oath was to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

@Sumit

 

[Ellie]

"Thank you for taking the stand, Ms. Quinvalan," the Ambassador would begin, "I understand that Brazil's stance on Taiwan is extremely hostile and while it has not escalated further than childish insults, it is still worrying that the leadership of a nation would treat another nation in such a way and I have called you as a witness here today for Taiwan to be able to have their voice heard on the matter by offering its own evidence against President Victor Romero's accusations.

So, Ms. Quinvalan, if you would indulge us, what has President Romero said and done towards Taiwan that you believe has broken the Global Assembly's founding principles?"

@Sumit

 

[Deleted member 5]

To answer the question that asked by French Ambassador at GA, the Taiwanese Ambassador named Ms. Hannah Quinlivan would answer the question. She would provide evidences to French Ambassador.

“My name is Hannah Quinlivan and I am representing as a Taiwanese Ambassador at Global Assembly. I would like to thank the France and members of judges to allow Taiwan to be part of this International Court of Justice Case.

Brazil and Taiwan two countries have very hostile and fragile relationship. From day one, Brazil showed us the hatred and viewed us as the renegade of China. Brazilian rhetoric has been stupid in a sense where their leaders especially Foreign Minister Silva and his brother kept repeated a sentence, (check post #24) chinese taipei is hiding former Brazilian president, Cheers to the gang of idiots who spew this utter nonsense. And didn't they know that we know they are hiding the former Brazilian government exiles who were the idiots that sold our four states?"

Few other instances, Taiwan got thrashed and mentally beaten by Brazilian government. Brazilian government called us draconian state. Clearly we have done nothing to them. Taiwan repeatedly support Sweden and other nations during the crisis but Brazilian Foreign Minister insulted Taiwanese Foreign Affairs Madame Wu many times to learn and understand diplomacy skill. He even said, Taiwan should learn diplomacy skill and Taiwan is known for having links to the PLA and triads in HK and Shanghai. In Foreign Minister Silva’s view, Taiwan never worked for peaceful solutions. My first question still remains, why would I seek peaceful solution with Brazil. They are enemy in our view and enemy of Taiwan.


I would like to release email conversation between Ms. Wu and Foreign Minister Silva. Here is evidence that describes why Taiwan having difficulties to get along with Brazil. Clearly, Foreign Minister Silva has mental health issue calling us floating turd and turd wain.

When Taiwanese President placed sanctions against Brazil, they completely flipped out. Their government keep repeats that Taiwan is holding Brazilian president that sold Brazilian four states to Argentina. Their lie, psychological trauma, tantrum made us feel insulted. Seems like Brazilian government almost cried because we placed sanctions. Brazilian government completely shows disrespect and racist behavior to Taiwan that we can not deny the fact. We will always fight against racism and support other nations that suffered political disaster conducted by Brazilian foreign minister. Their irresponsible government, lack of english speaking ability and abrupt behavior caused many smaller nation like Taiwan various problem. Not to mention that corrupted Minister Silva and his brother caused problems that made Taiwan singled out in global affairs. Truth hurts but what Taiwan can do. Taiwan can represent as a country in the world. Taiwan is an independent nation. Brazil has no right to say to Taiwan that Taiwan should learn diplomatic skill or Draconian State. They completely badmouthed us and Taiwan has done nothing wrong and proved that Brazil is a draconian state, their foreign minister is draconian and their president has mental issue. Brazilian government will never improve and will continue to go down by showing hatred, bully to other nations.


Your honor, members of Judge, and the Madame French Ambassador, All I have done to provide enough proofs that gather by Taiwan and I hope these evidence clearly shows Minister Silva breaking the law, showing racism towards the people of Taiwan. I must rest my case.”

 

[Naio90]

After long hours of hearing many "witnesses" speak, the argentine judge would ask for the floor:

"I thank all people here today for attending and bringing forth this very important matter.

It cannot be denied that the brazilians have acted in a very direct way and for some, inappropiate one, in what traditional diplomacy refers to. This behaviour cannot be repeated and should be marked.

However... I have been hearing now a lot of statements and complaints about declarations and conferences. A lot of Governments feeling offended or "psychologically traumatized".

Sadly, there is no written law regarding the prohibition for nations to express themselves. Obviously its not the diplomatic way and it will carry a heavy cost for them, but until we have such a law, its very subjective to judge on such things.

Thats why I would like to call the demanding nation to please focus on specific regulations broken by the accused, going beyond the "principles" of the Charter of the GA, which is in itself also very subjective."

 

[Odinson]

"I would concur with my Argentine colleague. We'll now allow the prosecution to finish their case, briefly if possible."

@Ellie

 

[Ellie]

The French ambassador would easily hold back an insult to the Justices, after all, she wasn't Brazilian, she understood proper social etiquette. She took a deep breath and formed a proper defense against the two Justices.

"Justices, I understand that it has been a long day and you have much on your plate," she would begin, "but these 'psychological traumatizes' are more than Brazil 'expressing themselves'. If everyone could express themselves in such a way then everything would be havoc, one nation would tell the other to go fuck themselves, another would tell them that they'll kill all of their ministers, another will tell them that they're assholes, they would continuously threaten each other with war, it would be global anarchy and I believe that the Global Assembly was made to oppose global anarchy.

Therefore, the Brazilian president's actions go against the founding principles of the Global Assembly, and principles are 'a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief and behavior'. Behavior. If we let the members of the Global Assembly run amock without enforcing its principles, the beliefs of the Global Assembly, and let its members go entirely against the principles... then frankly, what would be the point of the Global Assembly? It surely wouldn't be its principles, because they're not being enforced. So what, we let nations join the Global Assembly only for them to use the resolutions to their advantage and we don't enforce the founding Articles were they to break one of them? We're to let all of the Global Assembly's members act as rogue states and only 'abide' to the Global Assembly when it suits them? Is the Global Assembly not going to protect its very own members against other members who break the Assembly's Articles? Are we to leave all members to fend for themselves? It would be like raising a child from birth to be kind, peaceful, and tolerant only for you as the parent to tell your child that he's stupid for being that way. If that's the case then the Global Assembly might as well be defunct!

Regardless, Ms. Quinvilan, I thank you for taking the stand. France has already said what it has to. The Fifth Republic of France hereby accuses the Brazilian President, Victor Romero, of breaking Article I of the Global Assembly and thus, everything that the Assembly stands for."

@Odinson @Sumit @Naio90 @John @JJSmithJr @Dutchy @HeadlessSeeker @Moe

 

[Naio90]

"And who are we, judges of the ICJ to define in what cases its free speech and in what other cases its a "violation of the principles of the GA?

Did Mr. Romero behave poorly diplomatically speaking? Yes. Is France right in being offended? Surely. Is there a written law that regualtes what a individual can say or not? No.

In my legal opinion, this court cannot violate the right of free speech and support censorship. Mr. Romero's behaviour is questionable, but there is no legal ground to take actions against him.

Finally, according to your presentation, you are accusing Mr. Victor Romero as an individual here, and not the State of the Federative Republic of Brazil. An individual cannot legally break a law that is meant to regulate the interaction between States. And in the end, as the a Head of State, Mr. Romero has diplomatic immunity under Chapter 2 Art. 1 of the GA's Resolution on International Law, and could not be judged neither by foreign (French) law or, having the GA no written law against free speech, by the GA's.

There are no legal violations in this case, but merely moral and ethic ones."

 

[Ellie]

"With all due respect, Your Honor, there is a great difference between free speech and threats, hate, and treating a nation with war.

If I walked down the street and called a black man... well, I won't say it, but you know which racial slur I'm speaking of, if I threatened to stab a man in the throat or kidnap his family, then it is without a doubt that I would surely be arrested and brought before a court."

 

[Moe]

The Brazilian government has already sent a written statement, or tried to once, before it was stricken from the record, that this ICJ#4 case is a farce and based only on the fact the Foreign Minister of Brazil was late due to the fact that he needed to first go to Brazil to consult with and pick up his legal defense team. This is a trial based on nothing now that the Brazilian Foreign Minister is on trial in ICJ#3 and the Brazilian President will soon arrive for ICJ#5. We have nothing more to say about this trial. We suggest you take your complaints and arguments to either #3 or #5.

 

[Ellie]

The French Ambassador would look both puzzled and amazed at the stupidity of the Brazilian.

"What--You don't even know what this case is about, do you?! This has nothing to do about your Foreign Minister being late due to his 'need' to go to Brazil. This case is about your President's constant threats towards other foreign nations. And what statement have you made that was stricken from the record? You've said nothing this entire time!

Are you on some kind of substance or am I just having a stroke? How are you even a government agent?!"

 

[Moe]

"The Brazilian government did make a written statement that was not allowed to be heard in the courtroom and that is how it was stricken from the record.

By the way the Brazilian government would politely ask the ICJ to inquire to the French representative about the well-being of the Brazilian diplomats still stranded in Paris, as it seems the nation of France has not been able control it's own capital city for nearly a month.

This must be some violation of the GA, no?

If it is not, than it is just laughable that France is attempting to claim Brazil had somehow harmed France in some way, while at the same time claiming it cannot control its own citizens and needs rescue efforts from other countries as if it were struck by a natural disaster.

As stated, Brazil will only be appearing in the ICJ#3 and ICJ#5 cases at the moment.

Thank you,

Juan Veldez, Acting Foreign Minister of Brazil"

@Odinson @Ellie @Naio90

 

[Odinson]

⌈ ROLEPLAY NOTICE ⌋

Howdy @Moe,

Please remember that it is important to put verbalized speech into "quotations" and to clearly mark written messages as written messages. Otherwise, it just appears that you are writing an OOC message that no one can interpret ICly.

The Modern Nations Staff Team
Odinson

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"Well, I believe this case has no legal basis as my colleagues previous stated. This is also a massive waste of time. I believe a fine for both prosecution and defendant is in order."