General Membership Treaty amendment

For developing and managing the Commonwealth

Moderators: Chrimigules, Erik Mortis

Post Reply
User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

I propose the following amendment to the General Membership treaty:
Treaty of General Membership to the Small Commonwealth

1. There is a commonwealth, called the Small Commonwealth, which shall consist of all signatory members of this Treaty. All member nations may send one representative to the Commonwealth Assembly.

2. Nations wishing to join the commonwealth must be approved by the Commonwealth Assembly with at least a 1/3rd plurality. If rejected, a nation may reapply in 3 months.

3. The commonwealth's day to day operations are headed and overseen by a chairman known as the Primate which shall be a permanent position once appointed by the Commonwealth Assembly. The Primate oversees the Commonwealth Assembly.

3b. The Commonwealth Assembly may elect an official known as the Secundus, subject to all the same election and removal procedures as the Primate, whom shall be vested with the responsibility of assisting the Primate. Should the Primate be unavailable or unable to fulfill his/her duties the Secundus shall stand in for the Primate, until available, or a new one is elected.

3c. All votes of the Assembly shall be administered by the Primate in accordance with rules created by the Assembly. Treaties dependent upon the signing of this treaty shall use the rules created by the Assembly, unless treaty specific voting regulations are created by that treaty or its membership.

4. At any time the Commonwealth Assembly may hold a vote of no confidence and remove the current Primate. A simple majority (50%+1) is needed to remove a Primate and elect a new one. This vote is managed by the representative who proposed it.

5. Nations may leave at any time, but must give public notice of their intent to leave this treaty for it to be recognized. Upon leaving this treaty the departing nation is removed from all other treaties dependent upon this one.

6. The Commonwealth Court may interpret the treaties and conventions of the Small Commonwealth.

7. This treaty may be amended by the Commonwealth Assembly with a 3/4th (75.0%)three-fourths majority.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

Erik Mortis
Posts: 7238
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: County of Monty Crisco
Contact:

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Erik Mortis »

Want me to move this to the Assembly?

User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

I think your amendment is unnecessary since I have no doubt that the Assembly can make its own deliberative rules if it wants to.

My revised proposal would move the foundation of the Court into the General Membership treaty, as well as its power to interpret the treaties. Its arbitration and extra judicial powers would be left in the Court treaty. I see too many problems with doing it the way it is now. For example, it is not clear in what way the Court can interpret the treaties. The provision is ambiguous at best. I also find it strange that the Court can interpret a treaty that it does have jurisdiction over in a fundamentally different way than a treaty it does not have jurisdiction over is interpreted by the Assembly. To use Harvey's example; the Court can declare that 3/4ths majority means something in the copyright treaty, while the Assembly says that 3/4ths majority means something else in the other treaties. The inconsistencies make my head hurt. :p

Therefore:
Treaty of General Membership to the Small Commonwealth

1. There is a commonwealth, called the Small Commonwealth, which shall consist of all signatory members of this Treaty. All member nations may send one representative to the Commonwealth Assembly.

2. Nations wishing to join the commonwealth must be approved by the Commonwealth Assembly with at least a 1/3rd plurality. If rejected, a nation may reapply in 3 months.

3. The commonwealth's day to day operations are headed and overseen by a chairman known as the Primate which shall be a permanent position once appointed by the Commonwealth Assembly. The Primate oversees the Commonwealth Assembly.

3b. The Commonwealth Assembly may elect an official known as the Secundus, subject to all the same election and removal procedures as the Primate, whom shall be vested with the responsibility of assisting the Primate. Should the Primate be unavailable or unable to fulfill his/her duties the Secundus shall stand in for the Primate, until available, or a new one is elected.

4. At any time the Commonwealth Assembly may hold a vote of no confidence and remove the current Primate. A simple majority (50%+1) is needed to remove a Primate and elect a new one. This vote is managed by the representative who proposed it.

5. There is hereby established a Commonwealth Court (“CC”, “the Court”) as an independent and free court of justice and law.

a. The Court has the power to interpret the Treaties and Conventions of the Commonwealth.

b.The Court consists of a panel of three jurists independent of the governments of the participatory States, elected by the signatory nations of this treaty. The election shall be overseen by the Primate of the Commonwealth. The Jurists of the Commonwealth Court need not be national representatives.

6. Nations may leave at any time, but must give public notice of their intent to leave this treaty for it to be recognized. Upon leaving this treaty the departing nation is removed from all other treaties dependent upon this one.

7. This treaty may be amended by the Commonwealth Assembly with a 3/4th (75.0%)three-fourths majority.
Which would leave the Court treaty looking like this:
Convention on the Commonwealth Court

1.Any State who has signed and ratified the General Membership Treaty and been accepted into the Commonwealth, may sign and ratify, in accordance with its own constitutional procedure, the present Convention on the Commonwealth Court.

2.The Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to international dispute between signatory nations.

3. Disputes within a nation about a treaty or convention are dealt with by the concerning nations established court.

4. A signatory nation may grant, through the legal processes of that nation, additional powers to the Commonwealth Court, within the Jurisdiction of that signatory nation. The Commonwealth Court is not required to hear cases stemming from this clause.

5.This Convention may be amended by a qualified majority of the State Parties exceeding three fourths of the votes cast.
I know that these changes are massive and require a lot of discussion, but I seriously see no other way around the current situation. I also think that perhaps some sort of initial input by the Court of proposed treaties and amendments could be suggested? It would be in no way mandatory or decisive, it would only be an input by people that (hopefully) can check if the parts fit together. We have something similar in Sweden called the Law Council, a consultative body consisting of judges.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

Erik Mortis
Posts: 7238
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: County of Monty Crisco
Contact:

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Erik Mortis »

It is massive what you ask for. It changes the basic structure of the commonwealth toward that of a monolithic organizations. Why not just skip the pretense and merge the two treaties into a full out charter.

I honestly believe you are trying to grant to much power to the court. The court was made to be used by such treaties as required a court, such as the copyright treaty, not to become a judicial branch of the Commonwealth.

So we have to decided, do we want to keep the layered and optional style of the commonwealth, or throw it out and become a monolithic organization.

I prefer the layered style, it's more enticing to members, and keeps the power in the hands of the member nations, not a single 3 person court.

User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

You are exaggerating, Erik, and I don't like it. My amendment allows the Court to interpret the treaties of the Commonwealth, as already stated in the Convention. The interpretations made by the Court can at any time be changed by treaty amendment. It does not and will not be able to invalidate sections of treaties, it can not and will not be able to interfere in with the Assembly and it can not and will not be a common law source.

I hope that the representatives can see through your "monolithic organization" rhetoric.

The amendment is proposed, and if you read the text, I think it is fairly obvious what I'm trying to do. Now I leave it to the member nations to decide. After all, it is the member nations that have final jurisdiction over the treaties, not the Court or you.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

This would be the less massive change:
Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court.

1.Any State who has signed and ratified the General Membership Treaty and been accepted into the Commonwealth, may sign and ratify, in accordance with its own constitutional procedure, the present Convention on the Commonwealth Court

2.The Parties to this Convention hereby establish the Commonwealth Court (“CC”, “the Court”) as an independent and free court of justice and law.

3.The Court shall have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to international dispute between signatory nations.

4.The Court shall have the power to interpret the Treaties and Conventions dependent upon this Conventionof the Commonwealth, subject to the Treaties and Conventions themselves.

5.The Court shall consist of a panel of three jurists independent of the government of the participatory States, elected by the signatory nations of this treaty. The election shall be overseen by the Primate of the Commonwealth. The Jurists of the Commonwealth Court need not be national representatives.

6. Disputes within a nation about a treaty or convention are dealt with by the concerning nations established court.

7. A signatory nation may grant, through the legal processes of that nation, additional powers to the Commonwealth Court, within the Jurisdiction of that signatory nation. The Commonwealth Court is not required to hear cases stemming from this clause.

8.This Convention may be amended by a qualified majority of the State Parties exceeding three fourths of the votes cast.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

The question now becomes what you want the Court to do. Do you want it to be able to interpret the Treaties and Conventions of the Commonwealth, as the text reads now, the logical conclusion is that you should support the first amendment. If you want the Court to only be able to interpret the treaties dependent on the Court convention, with the possible irregularities that entails, you should support the second amendment.

I assure everyone that this is not a power grab or anything (but I'm not sure how treaty interpretation can be seen as a vast amount of power), I merely want to point out current and possible future inconsistencies.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

Erik Mortis
Posts: 7238
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: County of Monty Crisco
Contact:

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Erik Mortis »

What I want is to maintain the structure of the commonwealth at this time. The CC was meant to be an additional option, not a part of the core structure. Perhaps we didn't write the Court treaty properly.

User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

Hence the two amendment options. The convention reads "the treaties and conventions of the Commonwealth", implying all of them.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

Erik Mortis
Posts: 7238
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: County of Monty Crisco
Contact:

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Erik Mortis »

Which will make NO sense unless every member signs that treaty. What you want to do is fully merge the CC as a major institution with powers over the entire commonwealth. Not some small little modification.

The court can only apply to those treaties that use it, or it must be part of the general membership treaty. Thus creating a Charter. This can't be done as two treaties for what you want.

The court convention was miswritten, face it. We need to fix that treaty or make a full out Charter. I rather NOT create a monolithic charter.

Erik Mortis
Posts: 7238
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: County of Monty Crisco
Contact:

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Erik Mortis »

I reread the Convention. You are missing a key part of the line.
4.The Court shall have the power to interpret the Treaties and Conventions of the Commonwealth, subject to the Treaties and Conventions themselves.
"Subject to the treaties and conventions themselves". Meaning, if a treaty doesn't call for the CC, it has no jurisdiction. That's the only way 4 can make sense, else it will need to be removed from the treaty. If you have a problem with the CC, amend that treaty, don't try to shove the court into the General Membership Treaty.

User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

I thought this place was free for suggestion and discussion? "subject to the Treaties and Conventions themselves" can be interpreted in at least two ways. My interpretation is that the Court is bound to the text of the treaty, thus not being able to establish law that is not in the treaties. This is common in, for example, American courts, so it is not a strange concept. That is the problem with proposing badly worded treaties, laws and amendments. You open them up for interpretation and ambiguity.

My second proposed amendment brings the text in line with your interpretation. The representatives are free to propose whichever they like to the Assembly.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

Erik Mortis
Posts: 7238
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: County of Monty Crisco
Contact:

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Erik Mortis »

We had no problem till we got a court that wants to interpret all treaties.

Like I said, your problem isn't with the GM treaty, it's with the CC, fix that treaty.


Then again. I'm thinking about calling forth a Commonwealth wise convention to discuss this and other topics. The SC has grown much in the last year, more then I think we were prepared for. The informal style that we used at first may not be appropriate anymore.

User avatar
Malliki Tosha
Posts: 2516
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am

Re: General Membership Treaty amendment

Post by Malliki Tosha »

This is me, not the Court.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC

Post Reply

Return to “Small Commonwealth”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest