Court

[John]

Moe's trial opened my eyes a little to what can be decided legally icly. I feel like there should be a civilian court to determine matters based on national laws. Judges can be picked from a hat by staff to allow no bias decisions.

 

[Hollie]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, @John. Fortunately, we are in the process of refurbishing the International Court of Justice, so that they can handle all cases of International dispute regardless of your Position in the Global Assembly. This will make the Court an Independent body and will be Administrated by the Staff Team. This will also allow anyone to put forward a Judge, whose Country does not necessarily need to be a Member of the Global Assembly.

While the Court will formally recognise the Global Assembly as a body of Law, it means Players can rely on bringing a case to the Court, against any Country regardless of their status in the Assembly. This will hopefully make things much more effective, in the long time.

 

[Naio90]

The idea of MN is to run a country and control it as the player wants. If we implement "national courts" that would mean that other can interfere on what he wants to do ICly with HIS country. Not even speaking of who decides what is worth bringing to "national cour" and what not...

 

[Hollie]

Personally, I believe that Legal Roleplay should play a more prominent role on Modern Nations. There should be ramifications for Governments who inflict Terrible Atrocities, regardless whether this was how you intended to roleplay here. Players shouldn't expect that nothing can be done to penalize a Rogue Government. That being said, the choice to recognise any Court is down to the Individual Player. So, you don't have to attend a Summons.

Though, that doesn't mean the rest of the International Stage cannot vote to stop Trade with you (Etc) which will undoubtedly impact you for the worse. There are many ways to hurt a Nation, indirectly if they refuse to play nice. When you Roleplay this way, you must be prepared for the Majority to rally against you.

@Naio90

 

[Naio90]

I know, any player can just ignore international law, but it might have consequences. What im opposing here is the fact that other players can decide your internal situation. Take Moe's case for example, he decided to play a lunatic president, why do other players might get to influence that by acting as the "french justice system" and potentially arrest him?

 

[Suvorov]

A question I have as a student of the law is what legal tradition are we relying on to supply us with international law? This question could already be contemplated and answered but I haven’t found it (possibly due to my unfamiliarity).

The United Nations doesn’t exist here so theoretically internationally recognized treaties, The Hague, and other historical legal bodies of work may or may not exist.

There is no constitution, no memorandum of understanding, or universally accepted legal standard binding all nations. Right now, the only law that seems to exist is the one that we as players believe to be common. Possibly whatever law the player justices think is right. I see posts in the global assembly that restrictions on a nations sovereignty violate international law, but the question is: which law?

I cannot find a place where it would be illegal for me to slaughter my own citizens or to wage wars of conquest without a valid Casus belli.

There is no tradition of contract law either and contract law varies wildly country to country. I have my own legal case contemplated, but without a law to point to, my training tells me the issue is moot. It could be made up on the spot.

The only thing that binds nations to “international law” is the mutual acceptance of an operative set of laws that is to be observed. However, we seem to lack such clarity here.

Without an accepted basis of laws that form the body of international law, many players will end up being found guilty ex post facto, the determination of which would be a violation of the very same “international law” of which the player was accused. That, or, the player may argue that they haven’t violated any law at all and who would be to say, fairly, whether they had or they hadn’t without something to point to?

If we accept that there such a thing as “International Law” operative here, I propose one of the following options, To clarify it:

1) We adopt all UN resolutions, charters, treaties, and all legal tradition that stems from the UN as binding on the player-nations that were historically bound to them.

2) We craft our own constitutional framework for laws within the game and then as issues arise, we can have court cases that define the limits and boundaries of the law.

3) A combination of 1 & 2 would also work.

4) If the basis of MN’s laws has been declared, please make it more publicly accessible to those of us, like me, who are failures at where to find it.

---

I offer to assist in any drafting processes. I have my limited education in the law in general, American Constitutional law, statutory interpretation and creation, as well as the other methods they teach us to use legal training as broadly as possible to assist in any capacity.

I strongly advocate for us to develop our own legal framework from which to claim “international law.” We could write it to be broad enough to cover the necessary areas, and simple enough to be accessible to all.

I.E: Article III - The Use of Armed Forces

A) It shall be against the law of nations for a nation to wage wars of aggression.

B) Peacekeeping forces must be invited by the recognized sovereign of a state before they may legally enter unless a 3/4ths majority of the assembly of nations deem such peacekeeping forces to be necessary to preserve human life and the stability of the world.

This allows for players to interpret, what is a war? What is a war of aggression? But it makes it clear the general notion that it is wrong for a player to just start rolling their tanks across the globe.

What doesn’t it mean to be “the recognized sovereign?” What does it mean to preserve human life? These ambiguities allow us as a community to grow the meaning as time goes on, but still have a strong framework with which to say, “Japan’s deployment of military forces to Korea as “peacekeepers” violates international law because the sovereign of Korea did not invite their soldiers. This is naked aggression with a pretty name.”

Granted we could get more specific, but I wouldn’t want any set of laws to be inaccessible to newer players.

Yes, this is a game, but this game reaches levels of specificity and realism in some areas as to almost require the same level of realism and specificity in the legal world.

Note: I wrote this on my phone between classes so forgive any typos.

 

[Hollie]

@Naio90 , I do not agree with John's Suggestion, which is why I have not endorsed it. That being said, my Response to him outlines how we are Refurbishing the International Court of Justice so that every Government has access.
This should hopefully be the "Alternative" to what John has suggested, and be more effective for the Forum. Again, you do not need to use the Court but the option is there in case you want your Dispute to be heard.

@Suvorov The United Nations was replaced by the Global Assembly, due to Real Life Copyright infringement. This was not something we could change, so this was our Alternative.
The Treaties below are the ones that the Organisation have Adopted within the Forum, and are the Foundations for International Law.

• The Geneva Conventions (First, Second, Third and Fourth) Including Protocol I, II and III
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
• The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
• And the United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea

The Details of the Organisation can be found in the Thread, alongside the Charter and Statute that contain the Link to each of these Real Life Treaties.
All other Treaties are to be made within the Forum, by opening a Resolution to the Global Assembly.

 

[Suvorov]

@Hollie Thank you for directing me to the adopted treaties. I wasn't able to open those links, I assumed that they were placeholders. I get http://%27https//drive.google.com/file/d/1bIC0Ug8-mcpV0UHT0CpAeOXeBw8UVAeZ/view'

 

[Hollie]

@Suvorov Please try again. Unfortunately, there was an Error in the code which we have now managed to fix. You'll see how thorough the Global Assembly is.

 

[Suvorov]

@Hollie Links are now working as intended. Incredible! There are definitely a few gaps for legislation by the assembly, most notably trade disputes and intellectual property, cybersecurity, etc.

Are we then to assume that all other treaties, contracts, and relations between nations outside of these Foundational Documents are null and void?

 

[Hollie]

@Suvorov , I'm glad those Links are working for you now. Yes, there's definitely room for improvement but it's down to the Players to open Resolutions to have these Sections covered.
Players may, for convenience sake, open a Resolution with a Link to an existing UN Treaty which you would like the Community to vote on. It's not a requirement for everything to be made from Scratch!

As for Treaties and Contracts outside of these Documents, they're Null - You must re-negotiate for whatever those Treaties used to allow. It's not that they did not exist, but they are "Historic" (Best description)