The Commonwealth Court
- Kaiser Malarbor I
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:50 pm
The Commonwealth Court
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 .
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 .
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:20 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
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.
Gert Geens
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:32 am
- Location: Riego, Victoria
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:20 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
Gert Geens
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:32 am
- Location: Riego, Victoria
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
Gert Geens wrote: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.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:20 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
Gert Geens
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:32 am
- Location: Riego, Victoria
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.Gert Geens wrote: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.
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"
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:20 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
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.
Gert Geens
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:32 am
- Location: Riego, Victoria
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.Gert Geens wrote: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.
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.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:20 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
Agreed. Establishing such protocols, however, requires in my view some kind of semi-unanimous consent. In other words: this goes beyond the SC.
Gert Geens
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
-
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:32 am
- Location: Riego, Victoria
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
Something for another time, another summit then?Gert Geens wrote:Agreed. Establishing such protocols, however, requires in my view some kind of semi-unanimous consent. In other words: this goes beyond the SC.
- Malliki Tosha
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:20 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
Actually it did: all the nations (or almost so) that existed at the time.
Gert Geens
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
Diplomat of the Republic of Flanders
Diplomaat van de Republiek Vlaanderen
http://vlaanderen.micronatie.nl/forum/index.php
- Maximilian
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:43 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
The Commonwealth Court is an optional thing at the moment. I think we should make it mandatory.
Maximilian van Bunthe-Uné
High Representative of the Kingdom of Batavia to the Small Commonwealth
High Representative of the Kingdom of Batavia to the Small Commonwealth
-
- Posts: 7238
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
- Location: County of Monty Crisco
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
-
- Posts: 7238
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
- Location: County of Monty Crisco
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
I'd honestly rather that be in a Court Treaty. Some people may not want to be dragged into arbitration.
- Andreas the Wise
- Posts: 5253
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:41 pm
- Location: The Island of Melangia, Atterock, Kildare
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
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.
The character Andreas the Wise is on indefinite leave.
However, this account still manages:
Cla'Udi - Count of Melangia
Manuel - CEO of VBNC. For all you'll ever need.
Vincent Waldgrave - Lord General of Gralus
Q - Director of SAMIN
Duke Mel'Kat - Air Pirate, Melangian, and Duke of the Flying Duchy of Glanurchy
And references may be made to Vur'Alm Xei'Bôn (a Nelagan Micron of undisclosed purpose).
However, this account still manages:
Cla'Udi - Count of Melangia
Manuel - CEO of VBNC. For all you'll ever need.
Vincent Waldgrave - Lord General of Gralus
Q - Director of SAMIN
Duke Mel'Kat - Air Pirate, Melangian, and Duke of the Flying Duchy of Glanurchy
And references may be made to Vur'Alm Xei'Bôn (a Nelagan Micron of undisclosed purpose).
- Maximilian
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:43 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
Maximilian van Bunthe-Uné
High Representative of the Kingdom of Batavia to the Small Commonwealth
High Representative of the Kingdom of Batavia to the Small Commonwealth
- Harvey Steffke
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:28 pm
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 7238
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:37 pm
- Location: County of Monty Crisco
- Contact:
Re: The Commonwealth Court
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?
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
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:43 am
Re: The Commonwealth Court
My old proposal did pretty much what you're saying here.
Malliki Tosha
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
Owner, Mortis Mercatoria FC
Owner, Newport City FC
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests