The Commonwealth Court

[Kaiser Malarbor I]

There has been disagreement over the point of precisely what it means for the Commonwealth Court to "have the power to interpret the Treaties and Conventions of the Commonwealth, subject to the Treaties and Conventions themselves".

Let's hear it for some opinions. Mine is that the power of the Commonwealth Court to have jurisdiction over things comes strictly from nations voluntarily ratifying the court treaty, and the power to interpret the treaties of the Commonwealth does not apply in a binding way to anyone else. It might be worth it to amend the court treaty itself to clarify this, though I'm not quite sure how to go about doing that. That's where you guys come in .

[Gert Geens]

Judging the situation "as is", I think it's rather clear that the court's binding authority in whatever it says, is restricted to the nations that have signed the court-treaty. No nation can be bound be something it hasn't approved of.

I do concur however with Malliki that this could become a problem and I think he's right in the solution he proposed: add the court's interpretational power over every SC-treaty to the general treaty. Signing the court-treaty would in that case only mean that the signing nations not only accept the interpretational power of the court, but also give the court arbitrational powers and whatever else would be in the court-treaty.

Something else that should be noted if the treaties would be adapted to this thinking: that would make it harder for non-SC-members to sign any SC-treaty, because in that case the situation where some nations accept the courts right to interprete and some don't would emerge again.

[Dr Bjorn Olsen]

I agree. Treaties are pointless without accountability. Treaties must be taken seriously and are a legal document between parties, there MUST be a common juristiction over them.

I have thought about this for a long time, it might not happen in the SC but I believe that somehow, somewhere the law of treaties must be devised and member states held accountable of the obligations they agree upon with others.

For too long now the protocol of foreign affairs and relations has been too sporadic and random. Nobody should be afraid to obide by a law of treaty. I believe it would do our hobby a great dis service to carry on in such a non uniformed way. I don't believe the SC or any organisation for that matter who deal with treaties should be afraid to take a stronger line with how they are governed.

[Gert Geens]

There's no absolute need for a common jurisdiction (here in the form of the SCC) for treaties between nations. Most treaties exist ànd function without providing for common jurisdiction. But if you're going to have one, as is the case here, better do it right.

[Dr Bjorn Olsen]

There's no absolute need for a common jurisdiction (here in the form of the SCC) for treaties between nations. Most treaties exist ànd function without providing for common jurisdiction. But if you're going to have one, as is the case here, better do it right.

What's the point in a legally binding document if there is no common jurisdiction to hold states to accountability? Do Treaties really work in this hobby? Do people act on their obligations? I'm not so sure they do. One day you can have a treaty the next you can decide not too without any due consideration given to the negotiating states.

[Gert Geens]

That's actually the way it works irl: treaties are binding for as long as anyone wants them to be so. The establishment of a common jurisdiction won't change that: as soon as your parliament or whatever cancells the treaty, that jurisdiction looses it's power as well.

[Dr Bjorn Olsen]

That's actually the way it works irl: treaties are binding for as long as anyone wants them to be so. The establishment of a common jurisdiction won't change that: as soon as your parliament or whatever cancells the treaty, that jurisdiction looses it's power as well.

If you have a look at the establishing treaties they all follow the same common unified codes as laid down in the Vienna convention. A standard Treaty for Treaties, it gives jurisdiction to International Law. It's also similar in the EU, but i'd rather not talk about that.

I am of the firm believe that this continual casual attitude to Intermicronational Law needs to change for organisations like the SC to become more "relavant"

[Gert Geens]

Well, yes, but what's the Vienna convention going to do if I decide to cancell a treaty? (Former) partners may be angry and I loose some reputation as a trustworthy partner, but that's it.

I also avoided talking about the EU, because that's a rather pecular situation. So far as the SC is resembling the EU (which isn't that much at all) I agree there should be a common jurisdiction. But also following that premise, the common jurisdiction loses all binding power as soon as a member nation leaves the organisation as a whole.

[Dr Bjorn Olsen]

Well, yes, but what's the Vienna convention going to do if I decide to cancell a treaty? (Former) partners may be angry and I loose some reputation as a trustworthy partner, but that's it.

I also avoided talking about the EU, because that's a rather pecular situation. So far as the SC is resembling the EU (which isn't that much at all) I agree there should be a common jurisdiction. But also following that premise, the common jurisdiction loses all binding power as soon as a member nation leaves the organisation as a whole.

Agreed, but I wouldn't be too keen on leaving a treaty if Victoria was seen as an untrustworthy partner, that would keep Victoria bind or atleast see out its obligations.

Perhaps leaving the single treaties to one side, but focusing on the need to have a common and uniformed protocol on the law of treaty is a good first step no? I for one would not be opposed to Victoria being bind to the protocols of an internationally agreed law on such a protocol, I think it could only benefit.

[Gert Geens]

Agreed. Establishing such protocols, however, requires in my view some kind of semi-unanimous consent. In other words: this goes beyond the SC.

[Dr Bjorn Olsen]

Agreed. Establishing such protocols, however, requires in my view some kind of semi-unanimous consent. In other words: this goes beyond the SC.

Something for another time, another summit then?

[Malliki Tosha]

I don't think it has to go beyond the SC. Everything has to start somewhere. The UN didn't consist of all nations in the world in the beginning.

[Gert Geens]

Actually it did: all the nations (or almost so) that existed at the time.

[Maximilian]

The Commonwealth Court is an optional thing at the moment. I think we should make it mandatory.

[Erik Mortis]

Without at least making the basic functions of the court part of the GM treaty it's useless. While we don't need to give is powers to punish nations and the like, we need to put it's basic structure in the GM treaty and its power to interpret the treaties of the SC. I wouldn't advise anything further.

[Malliki Tosha]

The only other AOR I would even consider giving to the CC would be arbitration between member nations. That is, the CC has jurisdiction over disputes between member nations and will hear such a case on the application of one of the disputing nations. Oter than that, a separate court treaty, as we have now, can deal with internal judicial powers and any other stuff we might think of.

[Erik Mortis]

I'd honestly rather that be in a Court Treaty. Some people may not want to be dragged into arbitration.

[Andreas the Wise]

On the topic of international treaties, and as has been said in other contexts; over the last year or so the hobby has got (in my experience at least) significantly less serious about foreign affairs. Certainly many treaties have clauses that are meaningless and never really followed; and meaningful clauses (like "I'll defend you if you're attacked") tend to boil down to "Hmm, it's a recwar. Let's join and fight on side x. Oh, we have a treaty saying we should fight on side y. Meh."

I agree this is something that can only be addressed by international near-consensus. But I would say the SC is exactly the right place to start this sort of thing; nations who are used to working together and standardising. I can almost guarantee you that if you go onto the MCS now and say "Let's get serious about foreign affairs", you'll get less or the same nations who will agree in the end to a specific treaty as you would here.


On the topic of CC interpretation of treaties in General Membership - I'm happy with that.

[Maximilian]

I think what Erik proposed is the right thing to do. We should make the Commonwealth Court a court that can handle disputes about a treaty (with the power to interpret, etc.) and put all the other powers you want to add in a treaty.

[Harvey Steffke]

The only way I can think of to do the Commonwealth Court is to give it two, different jurisdictions of power. One, broad one that would interpret the treaties of the Small Commonwealth as needed and would umbrella all nations within it, but be apolitical and not deal with any specific national issues. The second would be the continuation of the Court established by the treaty and handle disputes between nations that have signed the treaty. The same body would judge both types of cases for convenience of not requiring a huge staff of jurors.

Doing this would require modification both to the General Membership Treaty as well as the Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court, but I think it would be worth the hassle to actually have a functioning system for decisively figuring out treaties rather than just talking about it in this summit and not being able to come to a binding consensus.

[Erik Mortis]

Okey.. so we need to merge the basic Court into the GMT...

What else does the Court need done to it. Do we like what's left to be kept in the old Court Treaty?

[Malliki Tosha]

My old proposal did pretty much what you're saying here.