[Chambers] [R4R] Regarding "On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code"

Attempted Socialism

Deputy Minister
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Attempted_Socialism
Discord
Kim Philby#9330
The Court Examiner has posted a R4R:


I propose we take it. I will be willing to serve as moderating justice.
 
Given that Dreadon’s resignation drops us to two, I believe we need to (per Constitution defining the Court as having 3 and also general good practice) have the R4R run at least until sometime after the special election finishes.
 
@Attempted Socialism I am fine with lengthening the period per Dreadton’s request, I also would suggest we appoint MJ as the THO - both because he’s very likely to win, and because I find it amusing to do so in that manner.
 
We should have St George on board now.
Do we have any particular questions we wish to raise for interested parties to reflect on in their briefs?
I'm here, hello.
I think perhaps my only question would be is where do petitioners (and others) see the limits as lying, and what problems they have with the ruling.
 
With no briefs submitted so far, I would ask you whether or not you favour extending the deadline once more.
My personal opinion is that we don't need to extend the deadline. I am preparing a few background notes from the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, as I also alluded to in the public post.
So as we approach the deadline I will ask for where you want to go with the case; should we overturn the old ruling, and if yes, what should the limits to our jurisdictional claims be?
I will expand with some tentative answers to my own questions down the line, but for now I'm confident in saying that the ruling should be overturned because it is a bad ruling and bad precedent.
 
My only concern with overturning the ruling is what it might potentially mean for offences where actions in allied regions are treated as happening in TNP, such as our espionage or treason laws. Other than that, I think overturning is probably a good idea.
 
In real-life law, this is easy to acertain, as we can safely and easily conceptualice the territory of a nation with its physical land.
It is not, in fact, easy to ascertain, as some countries will try crimes committed in its embassies and some countries will get the host country to and some countries will approach crimes committed in embassies on a case-by-case basis.

Given Vivanco's brief, I'm unsure what they're even asking us to overturn or what is outdated about the ruling.
 
According to Vivanco on Discord it was to answer the Court's questions, and a more expansive brief will be forthcoming.
I agree with you that it is not easy to ascertain jurisdictions. Countries have vastly different claims of jurisdiction. I live in a country with one of the most expansive jurisdictional claims in the world (to my knowledge), where even a crime contemplated by two foreigners on Danish soil but carries out in their home country can be prosecuted in Denmark. A jurist friend of mine sometimes joke that it is easier to exclude cases from Danish (claimed) jurisdiction, because our claims are so inclusive.
Your earlier concern about getting the delineation right is well-taken, but I think it's doable and easier here than it is in real life.
 
So, where do we want to go?
As I indicated earlier I would want to overturn the ruling if we can either return it to the RA to legislate on, or craft a better delineation of jurisdiction ourselves.
Vivanco and Zyvet have outlined why a number of the questions I raised are answered, which is true, but the questions were perhaps taken more literal than intended; questions meant to query intuitions and exemplify the difficult nature of jurisdiction were taken to be more indicative of the scope of a ruling than I meant. Nevertheless, Zyvet makes the general point that we should reject the request for review (letting the challenges ruling stand) since the challenged ruling is constitutional and lawful. This is not a good argument. The Court cannot overturn past rulings sua sponte, but we are not asked to do so here. However, we can (and, when brought before us, should always contemplate the possibility of) overturn rulings that -- while legal -- are detrimental to The North Pacific and the fulfillment of justice. We should not do so without good reason, and with all the due diligence as the Court and TNP broadly relies on a set precedent, of course, which is presumably our intention here.
This is also the precedent set by this Court in prior rulings, ironically enough cited by Zyvet (here), so I don't think it is a particular inventive sentiment.
 
I'll admit to being swayed immensely by Zyvet's brief and given that neither Vivanco or Dreadton have provided the briefs they indicated they would post, the onus here is on whether to agree largely with the merits of Zyvet's brief, or to invest a lot of time in our ruling in explaining as to why we are disagreeing with it.

As it is, I do not see what part of the original ruling is detrimental to the region.
 
I'll admit to being swayed immensely by Zyvet's brief and given that neither Vivanco or Dreadton have provided the briefs they indicated they would post, the onus here is on whether to agree largely with the merits of Zyvet's brief, or to invest a lot of time in our ruling in explaining as to why we are disagreeing with it.

As it is, I do not see what part of the original ruling is detrimental to the region.
Would you want an outline of my proposed opinion, to see if I can sway you the other way? If there is a majority of the Court who finds in favour of the ruling as it stands I won't write it out, but we should do it the due diligence of testing the arguments against one another.

@Lord Dominator if you have time and better internet, I'd love your input as well.
 
Okay, so having read all the stuff and the ruling in question, I am not seeing anything in particular to overturn whatever we think of Zyvet's brief - the first paragraph is entirely reasonable in the general sense & the second is odd, but dealing with a subject matter that has yet to actually come up in a trial and seems unlikely to.

In that sense, I am inclined to think there's two paths here:
1. Rule that we won't make a ruling on what is effectively an open-ended not-a-question at present, based on Zyvet's brief and pointing to the acceptable extant ruling(s).
2. Issue a ruling that serves as an expanded but not contradictory expansion of the extant one.

I am at this point inclined principally to 1z as again we don't really have an unanswered question - or really any "question" so to speak & the kinds of clarifications I can see making aren't principally ones I think we need to be doing effectively sua sponte.
 
First, to outline the problem with the ruling in short:

The first sentence is that "any nation may be prosecuted for crimes other than treason", which in context is meant to say that former residents can be prosecuted in absentia for crimes committed while residents. This is reinforced by the later line "they may be tired [sic] even if their nation no longer resides in The North Pacific".
First, while this is the obvious intended reading, it is not the only possible one. I could read it as a limitless claim to jurisdiction by focusing on the "any nation may be prosecuted" bit and in the later line the "expected of committing a crime in The North Pacific". The ruling leaves enough room for ambiguity to enable two vastly different interpretations: We can either have a very limited claim of jurisdiction – against those who committed crimes here while residents – or the most expansive claim possible – against any nation who may be expected to commit a crime against TNP law in the future – in the same ruling. That is a bad ruling.
Second, the intended reading leaves us unable to prosecute those whom we might want to prosecute if they never had a nation in The North Pacific. Someone can join our Discord or forum without having a nation in the region (Or having let their nation CTE prior to the crime) and could commit a wide range of crimes, but without the possibility of being formally prosecuted. We would also be unable to prosecute a spy who left The North Pacific prior to sharing information obtained, rather limiting the prohibition on espionage in the Legal Code.

I see either of those problems as cause to overturn (Or revise/restate, if that is where we go) the ruling.

Next, just to address Zyvet’s broader argument on jurisdiction, I don’t think that is a persuasive argument. The general argument is that as long as a prior ruling is constitutional and lawful, the Court is bound by the Constitution to let it stand. That is first not the plain reading of the cited rulings (Themselves referring back to the Constitution), which specifically open for the Court to overturn prior rulings (With the caveat that precedent should be afforded due deference and thus the Court should not overturn prior rulings without very good cause), but it is also a bad policy.
As I opined earlier:
The Court cannot overturn past rulings sua sponte, but we are not asked to do so here. However, we can (and, when brought before us, should always contemplate the possibility of) overturn rulings that -- while legal -- are detrimental to The North Pacific and the fulfilment of justice. We should not do so without good reason, and with all the due diligence as the Court and TNP broadly relies on a set precedent, of course, which is presumably our intention here.

With that out of the way, I’ll turn to the jurisdictional claims.Let me first say that I will also be fine with overturning the ruling and explicitly refuse to issue a new ruling, letting the Regional Assembly legislate on the matter. I am brought up in a Civil Law system and I would always prefer ordinary lawmaking to lawmaking from the bench.
However, I do have some notions about jurisdictional claims. First, and fairly obvious, we would have jurisdiction over nations residing here. Residents are subject to our laws. Second, ex-residents could be tried for crimes that they committed while residents. This is the same as the challenged ruling. Third, solving my issues with the ruling, we would claim jurisdiction over crimes that happen ‘on our soil’, that is, the region, Discord, forum, etc. Fourth, we would claim jurisdiction over specific crimes committed against The North Pacific, namely sections 1.1 (Treason), 1.2 (Espionage), 1.6 (Crashing), 1.7 (Phishing), and 1.11 (Conspiracy – if external conspirators are colluding with residents). We would, for instance, thus be able to charge (And convict in absentia) any collaborators with resident traitors or spies. Fifth, we would claim jurisdiction over embassies where those are considered our soil by the hosting region – this is again the same as the challenged ruling. Sixth, we would by default claim jurisdiction over any resident who commits a crime as listed in the Legal Code against an allied region, unless otherwise is formally agreed with the region in question (Akin to an extradition treaty).

That is in brief how I see the matter, and how I would delineate the question of jurisdiction if asked.
 
That is certainly something to think about. I'm in two minds but will join whichever opinion is reached by the majority.

I also lost internet connection this morning with no idea when it will return (provider says 2-3 working days for an engineer to address it), so I'm on mobile data or like cafe WiFi for now.
 
@Lord Dominator @St George
I have written up a rough draft ruling. Parts of the set-up (Italics, numbered list) is lost in copying from my Drive to the forum, but obviously I would fix it if we proceed with this as the basis for a ruling.
Chapter 4 is perhaps a bit contentious, so I am willing to take it out of the ruling (I would probably submit it as a concurrence in that case), but otherwise I believe it is merely an expansion of the outline I gave earlier.
If you want to make comments on parts of the document I have it on my Google Drive here. The comment function should be enabled.


On Jurisdictional Claims


This draft ruling is in reply to the Request for Review by Vivanco. It will proceed in 4 chapters. Chapter 1 is a review of the Court’s own jurisdiction over the matter. Chapter 2 is the Court’s analysis of the issues with the prior ruling On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. Chapter 3 is the Court’s revision and expansion of the prior ruling, based on the analysis in Chapter 2. In Chapter 4 the Court opines on the virtues of legislating on the jurisdictional claims of The North Pacific rather than leaving the lawmaking to the Judiciary.

Ch. 1: On the Court’s Jurisdiction​

The Request for Review targets a prior ruling by the Court, asking the Court to review whether the ruling stands as precedent or shall be overturned. In past cases the Court has placed emphasis on precedent, and with good reason. In a legal system where the Court’s ruling sets precedent, that is, a binding effect on the entirety of the Government – outside the narrow scope of ruling on a single case – those rulings have the same prescriptive force as a law, and instructs Government officials in their behaviour. As with changing a law, overturning or revising precedent shall not be done lightly, but must be done openly, and with sufficient explanation to confer legitimacy to the new ruling. To cite precedent on the matter, the Court turns to its prior ruling On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers:
(...) the Court is obliged to review its own decisions should the need arise (and a proper request be made - arbitrary requests for review every time a new Court is elected are not permissible), as it is responsible for doing with all governmental policies (...)
The law must be allowed to evolve to match society, and conclusively binding decisions carry with them the potential to greatly restrict the ability of the law, and the Court, to adjust with the times.
The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (...) furthermore [we] believe that a heightened standard of review must be followed when reviewing the decisions of a previous Court, out of respect and deference to the law as established by our predecessors.
In other words, the Court must explain itself fully when overturning precedent. The Court must try, wherever possible, to act in accordance with precedent, so long as that precedent does not conflict with new law, or the fundamental principles of justice established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Court does not need to find a prior ruling unconstitutional or unlawful to overturn it. The Court, through deliberate review as requested by a person with standing, can find that a prior ruling is in conflict with fundamental principles of justice or the societal norms of The North Pacific as it has evolved since that ruling.
The Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to overturn, revise, or uphold, the challenged ruling with the caveats cited above.

Ch. 2: Analysis of the challenged ruling​

The Court finds two points of contention with On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. Firstly, while one reading is clearly intended, there is enough possible ambiguity to force through a reading giving the opposite result, and secondly, the ruling does not sufficiently delineate the jurisdiction of The North Pacific to offer justice and protection to the lawful residents of The North Pacific.
The intended meaning of the ruling is quite clear. The first sentence is that “any nation may be prosecuted for crimes other than treason”, which in context is meant to say that former residents can be prosecuted in absentia for crimes committed while residents. This is reinforced by the later line “they may be tired [sic] even if their nation no longer resides in The North Pacific”. However, if one chooses so, they may read an almost limitless claim to jurisdiction into the ruling by focusing on “any nation may be prosecuted” and in the later line the “expected of committing a crime in The North Pacific”. This sort of ambiguity is explicitly what the Court is mandated to resolve by the Constitution.
While resolving ambiguity is worthwhile on its own, the intended meaning is not without flaws. The prior ruling is explicit in dealing with current residents or former residents who are on trial for alleged crimes committed while residents, but that is not in keeping with the social fabric as it has developed. The North Pacific res publica is not limited to the region proper, but also extends to the Forum and the Discord. A person could join The North Pacific’s Forum or Discord without having a nation reside in the region with the explicit intention of committing crimes, but under the ruling as it stands, the Government would not have jurisdiction to indict and the Court would not have jurisdiction to try that person. Furthermore, the espionage section of the Criminal Code deals with sharing information with unauthorised third parties, but if the jurisdiction of The North Pacific is limited to crimes committed while resident, an industrious spy can obtain citizenship, use it to access privileged information, retain said information but leave the region, and then proceed to share it, and not be criminally liable for those actions because the criminal act did not occur while resident.
The Court finds that the points of contention are causes for concern, and sufficient to justify revisiting the precedent set in the ruling. The Court also finds that either point of contention would be enough to live up to the heightened standard of review set by On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers.

Ch. 3: Holding​

The Court holds that the challenged ruling is ambiguous and insufficient to offer justice and protection to residents of The North Pacific and must therefore be revised. The Court does not find it necessary to overturn the ruling, as the ambiguity can be clarified and the jurisdictional claims better delineated to solve both points of contention without the disruption that overturning the ruling would be.

Resolving ambiguity​

The ruling is disambiguated here by the Court holding that the former reading is the correct one. There shall be no doubt that the jurisdiction demarcated by the ruling, prior to this review, was limited to residents of The North Pacific and those nations whose alleged crimes were committed while residents of The North Pacific. The Court did not make extensive claims to jurisdiction in all imaginable future cases where a breach of Legal Code could be expected.

Revising Jurisdictional Claims​

The Court furthermore revises its prior ruling to develop a more substantive and workable set of jurisdictional claims. Those claims will be developed here with the necessary clarification.
  1. Residents of The North Pacific​

Adopted from the challenged ruling, and as stipulated by both the Constitution and the Legal Code, residents of The North Pacific fall under the jurisdiction of The North Pacific.
  1. Former residents​

Adopted from the challenged ruling, former residents can be tried for crimes they are alleged to have committed while residents of The North Pacific. If the former resident does not accept the indictment and trial, they can be tried in absentia in accordance with the ordinary regulations for a trial.
  1. Crimes committed on North Pacific soil​

Regardless of residency, The North Pacific claims jurisdiction over crimes committed against residents or the region, as stipulated by the Criminal Code, in cases where that crime happened on North Pacific soil. Soil is here understood to be the equivalent to the physical territory of the region, which is at minimum the Region – including World Factbook Entry, regional Dispatches, and the Regional Message Board – the Forum, and the regional communication platform(s) – currently the collection of The North Pacific’s Discord servers.
  1. Jurisdiction over specific crimes committed against the region​

The North Pacific as a community must be protected from outside opposing actors, and one avenue is the possibility of bringing those foreign actors to trial, banning them from the region’s soil and rejecting future attempts to gain citizenship. In cases of alleged crimes clearly committed against The North Pacific, and attempts to destabilise the region, the Court would accept an indictment and trial of people who have allegedly committed the crimes of Treason (Legal Code section 1.1); Espionage (LC 1.2); Crashing (LC 1.6); Phishing (LC 1.7); and Conspiracy (LC 1.11) where the alleged conspiracy includes non-resident actors.
  1. Embassies​

The North Pacific claims jurisdiction over embassies in regions that consider embassies to be the soil of the hosted nation. If a crime is committed against The North Pacific’s embassies – or against The North Pacific, using an embassy as proxy – and the other region allows it, it is within the power of the Government to bring the alleged criminal to trial, and within the power of the Court to convict.
  1. Default claim on residents who commit crimes against allies​

The Legal Code enumerates several crimes that residents can commit against allies. If a resident commits an act against an ally that is considered a crime by our Legal Code, we would by default claim jurisdiction to try that resident, unless otherwise is specified with said ally, such as a form of extradition treaty.

Ch. 4: On the need for legislation​

While the Court finds that it has the power to overturn, revise, or uphold the ruling it made, that does not mean a ruling by the Court is entirely without its own problems. Topics as weighty and challenging as jurisdiction are ideally settled by law, drafted, voted on, and ratified, rather than legislating from the bench. It is thus the opinion of the Court that it would be proper for interested citizens to draft legislation on jurisdiction to be submitted to the Regional Assembly. The Court is confident that its ruling is sound and well-reasoned, and as such humbly suggests that new draft legislation takes this ruling as its basis.
 
I’m still thinking on the rest, but would agree that 4 should be removed - it is the default state of affairs anyway, there’s no need to repeat it.
 
Yeah, that was kind of expected. I come from a civil law perspective where judicial lawmaking is anathema, and putting it front and centre in a ruling is probably too much of a clash with TNP culture. I will probably still put it out there, but only as my own (concurring) opinion, rather than as part of the ruling.
 
Okay, thinking some more I broadly agree with your opinion, although I think there is probably a better (and also more consistent with the past) way to structure the ruling, in particular to delineate the differences between crimes.
 
I formatted it to be consistent with the template for rulings, and expanded on some parts. Most are copy-pasted, but parts have been rewritten, and I added the section 'The Nature of Jurisdiction' to -- hopefully -- avoid any confusion. I have not copied all formatting over, but you can see how it should look on my drive where you can also comment on the document.

court_seal.png

court_seal.png

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @Vivanco On Jurisdictional Claims
Opinion drafted by Chief Justice @Attempted Socialism, joined by Justices @Lord Dominator and @St George

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Vivanco.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Vivanco.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by @Zyvetskistaahn.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:

Article 4. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
(...)
5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court Rules and Procedures:
Chapter 5: Precedent and Appeals

Section 1: Precedent
  1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
  2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
  3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of prior rulings:
On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers:
(...) the Court is obliged to review its own decisions should the need arise (and a proper request be made - arbitrary requests for review every time a new Court is elected are not permissible), as it is responsible for doing with all governmental policies (...)
The law must be allowed to evolve to match society, and conclusively binding decisions carry with them the potential to greatly restrict the ability of the law, and the Court, to adjust with the times.
The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (...) furthermore [we] believe that a heightened standard of review must be followed when reviewing the decisions of a previous Court, out of respect and deference to the law as established by our predecessors.
In other words, the Court must explain itself fully when overturning precedent. The Court must try, wherever possible, to act in accordance with precedent, so long as that precedent does not conflict with new law, or the fundamental principles of justice established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
On the Validity of a Previous Ruling:
Regarding "exceptional circumstances":
The Court disagrees with the previous ruling that only under exceptional circumstances can the Court be reviewed. With no clear definition of "exceptional circumstances," the Court would be free to raise such standards to dismiss a case through the use of whatever criteria it felt was necessary to do so. It could also lower the same to accept a case that ordinarily wouldn't be under the concept of "exceptional circumstances." Even the oft-cited ruling on the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers failed to adequately define its own concept of "heightened standards," leaving the definition to be decided by the Court arbitrarily. While this Court agrees that a request to simply "look again" because a petitioner or the Attorney General's office was unhappy with the result should be rejected, whenever there is the possibility that the court was not in compliance with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code, overturned precedent without explanation, or if there is new evidence uncovered that might impact a past ruling, a review would be warranted.
On Court Review of RA Proposals:
This decision does not apply solely to requests to review proposals of the Regional Assembly. More broadly, the Court finds that justices are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting a request for review of anything that is not a law, government policy, or government action. When a justice does so, the Court ought to find in their ruling that the object of the request is not within the scope of their review power, and decline to rule on it.

The Court opines the following:

This ruling is in reply to the Request for Review by Vivanco. It will proceed in 6 sections. In Section 1 the petitioner’s standing and regional interest will be noted. In Section 2 the ability of the Court to review prior rulings will be outlined. In Section 3 the Court will analyse the prior ruling and highlight two points of contention. In Section 4 the Court will offer an explanation of what jurisdiction is – and what it isn’t. In Section 5 the Court will resolve the ambiguity found in the analysis. In Section 6 the Court will revise the prior ruling. Sections 2, 3, and 4 are to be considered statements of facts. Section 5 and 6 are the Court’s Holding in the case.

Section 1: Standing and Regional Interest.​

Standing.​

Petitioner Vivanco is duly appointed Court Examiner in accordance with Section 3.6 of the legal code. They have universal standing in all cases of Judicial Review. As such the petitioner has standing.

Regional Interest:​

The question before the Court is one of jurisdiction; the applicability of the collection of laws, rights, and duties that The North Pacific has duly ratified and imposed. There can be no doubt that the topic has regional interest. As a prior ruling establishes a precedent, the Court finds itself under a heightened standard of review. Therefore the Court recognises that regional interest is not enough, but it has to establish its own jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn the prior ruling, and the Court has to explain itself fully if it desires to revise or overturn precedent.
The Court finds that it does so in Sections 2 and 3.

Section 2: The Court’s Ability to Review Prior Rulings.​

The Request for Review targets a prior ruling by the Court, asking the Court to review whether the ruling stands as precedent or shall be overturned. In past cases the Court has placed emphasis on precedent, and with good reason. In a legal system where the Court’s ruling sets precedent, that is, a binding effect on the entirety of the Government – outside the narrow scope of ruling on a single case – those rulings have the same prescriptive force as a law, and instructs Government officials in their behaviour. As with changing a law, overturning or revising precedent shall not be done lightly, but must be done openly, and with sufficient explanation to confer legitimacy to the new ruling. To cite precedent on the matter, the Court turns to its prior ruling On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers:
(...) the Court is obliged to review its own decisions should the need arise (and a proper request be made - arbitrary requests for review every time a new Court is elected are not permissible), as it is responsible for doing with all governmental policies (...)
The law must be allowed to evolve to match society, and conclusively binding decisions carry with them the potential to greatly restrict the ability of the law, and the Court, to adjust with the times.
The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (...) furthermore [we] believe that a heightened standard of review must be followed when reviewing the decisions of a previous Court, out of respect and deference to the law as established by our predecessors.
In other words, the Court must explain itself fully when overturning precedent. The Court must try, wherever possible, to act in accordance with precedent, so long as that precedent does not conflict with new law, or the fundamental principles of justice established by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Court does not need to find a prior ruling unconstitutional or unlawful to overturn it. The Court, through deliberate review as requested by a person with standing, can find that a prior ruling is in conflict with fundamental principles of justice or the societal norms of The North Pacific as it has evolved since that ruling.
The Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to uphold, revise, or overturn, the challenged ruling with the caveats cited above.

Section 3: Analysis of the Prior Ruling​

The Court finds two points of contention with On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. Firstly, while one reading is clearly intended, there is enough possible ambiguity to force through a reading giving the opposite result, and secondly, the ruling does not sufficiently delineate the jurisdiction of The North Pacific to offer justice and protection to the lawful residents of The North Pacific.
The intended meaning of the ruling is quite clear. The first sentence is that “any nation may be prosecuted for crimes other than treason”, which in context is meant to say that former residents can be prosecuted in absentia for crimes committed while residents. This is reinforced by the later line “they may be tired [sic] even if their nation no longer resides in The North Pacific”. However, if one chooses so, they may read an almost limitless claim to jurisdiction into the ruling by focusing on “any nation may be prosecuted” and in the later line the “expected of committing a crime in The North Pacific”. This sort of ambiguity is explicitly what the Court is mandated to resolve by the Constitution.
While resolving ambiguity is worthwhile on its own, the intended meaning is not without flaws. The prior ruling is explicit in dealing with current residents or former residents who are on trial for alleged crimes committed while residents, but that is not in keeping with the social fabric as it has developed. The North Pacific res publica is not limited to the region proper, but also extends to the Forum and the Discord. A person could join The North Pacific’s Forum or Discord without having a nation reside in the region with the explicit intention of committing crimes, but under the ruling as it stands, the Government would not have jurisdiction to indict and the Court would not have jurisdiction to try that person. Furthermore, the espionage section of the Criminal Code deals with sharing information with unauthorised third parties, but if the jurisdiction of The North Pacific is limited to crimes committed while resident, an industrious spy can obtain citizenship, use it to access privileged information, retain said information but leave the region, and then proceed to share it, and not be criminally liable for those actions because the criminal act did not occur while resident.
The Court finds that the points of contention are causes for concern, and sufficient to justify revisiting the precedent set in the ruling. The Court also finds that either point of contention would be enough to live up to the heightened standard of review set by On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court’s Powers.

Section 4: The Nature of Jurisdiction​

The Court emphasises that claiming jurisdiction in a case does not empower the Court alone, or invents some new crime. The jurisdiction of The North Pacific is the space where the laws of The North Pacific can be legitimately enforced by The North Pacific. An act that transgresses against the laws of The North Pacific does not become a crime universally, but solely by virtue of that act happening within the space that The North Pacific has jurisdiction over is an act a crime according to the laws of The North Pacific.
The Court does not expand its own powers in this ruling, but the space in which the laws of The North Pacific apply. The roles of residents, citizens, the Regional Assembly, the Speaker’s Office, the Court, the Government, and the Administration, are unchanged.

Section 5: Resolving Ambiguity​

The challenged ruling is disambiguated here by the Court holding that the former reading, presented in the analysis, is the correct one. There shall be no doubt that the jurisdiction demarcated by the ruling, prior to this review, was limited to residents of The North Pacific and those nations whose alleged crimes were committed while residents of The North Pacific. The Court did not make extensive claims to jurisdiction in all imaginable future cases where a breach of Legal Code could be expected.

Section 6: Revising Jurisdictional Claims​

The Court furthermore revises its prior ruling to develop a more substantive and workable set of jurisdictional claims. Those claims will be developed here with the necessary clarification. The Court notes that some of these revisions are currently hypothetical. The Court intends to make the ruling comprehensive even in the case of future drastic changes to civil society in The North Pacific or the inter-regional political stage. Some jurisdictional claims are therefore qualified in ways that makes the current set of that category of claim zero.
Any future region that is a subject of The North Pacific, such that it is not sovereign in itself but legally considers itself and is recognised by The North Pacific as part of The North Pacific, is also subject to the laws of The North Pacific and shall be included in the jurisdiction of The North Pacific.
If a former resident or non-resident is alleged to have committed a criminal act and is indicted for it, but does not accept the indictment and trial, they can be tried in absentia in accordance with the ordinary regulations for a trial.

Residents of The North Pacific​

Adopted from the challenged ruling, and as stipulated by both the Constitution and the Legal Code, residents of The North Pacific fall under the jurisdiction of The North Pacific.

Former Residents​

Adopted from the challenged ruling, former residents can be tried for crimes they are alleged to have committed while residents of The North Pacific.

Crimes committed on North Pacific soil​

Regardless of residency, The North Pacific claims jurisdiction over crimes committed against residents or the region, as stipulated by the Criminal Code, in cases where that crime happened on North Pacific soil. Soil is here understood to be the equivalent to the physical territory of the region, which is at minimum the Region – including World Factbook Entry, regional Dispatches, and the Regional Message Board – the Forum, and the regional communication platform(s) – currently the collection of The North Pacific’s Discord servers.
Acts that can be considered crimes but which are handled by e.g. the Administration do fall under the aegis of The North Pacific, but the Court does not invite the Government or citizens to press charges in cases of spam or obscene material when those cases are better handled administratively.

Jurisdiction over specific crimes committed against the region​

The North Pacific as a community must be protected from outside opposing actors, and one avenue is the possibility of bringing those foreign actors to trial, banning them from the region’s soil and rejecting future attempts to gain citizenship. In cases of alleged crimes clearly committed against The North Pacific, and attempts to destabilise the region, the Court would accept an indictment and trial of people who have allegedly committed the crimes of Treason (Legal Code section 1.1); Espionage (LC 1.2); Crashing (LC 1.6); Phishing (LC 1.7); and Conspiracy (LC 1.11) where the alleged conspiracy includes non-resident actors.

Embassies​

Where another region is host to an embassy of The North Pacific, and considers that embassy to be the soil of the hosted region, the North Pacific can accept the transfer of jurisdiction. If a crime is committed against The North Pacific’s embassies – or against The North Pacific, using an embassy as proxy – and the other region allows it, it is within the power of The North Pacific to bring the alleged criminal to trial, and within the power of the Court to convict.

Residents who commit a crime against allies​

The Legal Code enumerates several crimes that residents can commit against allies. If a resident commits an act against an ally that is considered a crime by our Legal Code, we would by default claim jurisdiction to try that resident. If, however, a future treaty includes provisions akin to rules for extradition, and the allied region intends to prosecute the resident, The North Pacific can transfer the jurisdiction in that case to the allied nation.
 
Last edited:
Apologies, I also meant to draft a thing - in particular because I think it can be much shorter/denser:

Standing
The petitioner is the legally selected Court Petitioner, and as such has universal standing.

Questions of Review Jurisdiction
As a legally submitted request for review without notable defect in its construction, this Court cannot simply decline the request. However, as a brief points out the initial request does not detail any specific alleged issues with the of the prior ruling On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, but rather vague assertions of the ruling being "outdated" given current mechanisms of the region and changes since the ruling. As all other submitted briefs likewise do not allege any particular issue with the ruling, this Court has no good reason to overturn the ruling, nor to significantly alter its core ideas. As such, this ruling is constrained simply to collating the information of other past rulings and changes to in effect "update" the On Jurisdiction without materially modifying it.

Territory of The North Pacific
By definition, the territory of The North Pacific includes the literal region on NationStates. Per the Constitution, the legally defined forum is territory of the same, as are any parts of forums that other regions have designated as our territory per On the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Code, should any exist. Finally, in consideration of the ruling On the Freedom of Information Act and Off-forum Content, any official Discord servers (as well as their equivalents or successors) are reasonably considered to be territory of The North Pacific.

Government Jurisdiction
In consideration of the above, The North Pacific and its government have jurisdiction over all of its territory, as well as any residents/citizens thereof. Additionally, as per the ruling On Jurisdiction former residents and citizens may be held criminally accountable for any crimes committed while they were a resident or citizen. Finally, as general principle crimes must be committed against The North Pacific or its residents/citizens in order to be crimes under regional law, unless the Legal Code otherwise expands or limits where a crime can be committed to be such under our laws - for example, the current definitions of Treason and Espionage providing for criminal liability when those acts are committed against specific other regions.
 
@Vivanco, @St George my condensed version of much the same - with the notable exception that it lacks any language on the nature of crimes that may take place on our territory, but aren't committed by residents. I feel like it would be best to leave that to itself in a hypothetical future ruling, in particular to allow the appropriate amount of discussion for that rather thornier problem.
 
I can see the overlaps, and I can sign on to your version if that is where we land. However, I would highlight the merit of including the Court's analysis, since we are changing a prior ruling, thus changing precedent, and I would also emphasise that my reading of our jurisdiction would currently leave us unable to prosecute non-residents who commit crimes against TNP, even if we wanted to.
I obviously like my version (that's why I wrote it), but I think the flaws warrant my longer ruling on the merits.

To understand you correctly, would you be opposed to my draft, or do you also "just" prefer your own?
And if so: Is there a decent compromise possible between the two?
 
I can see the overlaps, and I can sign on to your version if that is where we land. However, I would highlight the merit of including the Court's analysis, since we are changing a prior ruling, thus changing precedent, and I would also emphasise that my reading of our jurisdiction would currently leave us unable to prosecute non-residents who commit crimes against TNP, even if we wanted to.
I obviously like my version (that's why I wrote it), but I think the flaws warrant my longer ruling on the merits.

To understand you correctly, would you be opposed to my draft, or do you also "just" prefer your own?
And if so: Is there a decent compromise possible between the two?
I prefer my own in a structural sense would be the best way to put it - and more precisely, in general length.

Certainly I have no general opposition to your version of jurisdiction except strictly I do’t think we need the degree of detail why.
 
Back
Top