[DRAFT] Protection of State Immunity

Status
Not open for further replies.

saintpeter

Chief Justice
Moved to the NS forums: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=486112

I have written the following propsal. Before I distribute it to the general public through the NS forums, I would appreciate any feedback. Also, I know the numbers and letters aren't properly indented at the moment, I'll fix that once I move it to the NS forums.
Protection of State Immunity
General Assembly | Category: Political Stability | Strenght: Mild

The World Assembly,

Realising that for a state to be haled into the courts of another state is deeply offensive,

Emphasising the need for WA member states to recognise the immunities that come with national sovereignty,

Distraught that failure to reasonably recognise the state immunity of fellow WA member states can cause severe tension and conflict,

Expressing the need to balance the right to state immunity with the interests of victims seeking to sue a WA member state,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "state" as:
a. a government;
b. one of its political subdivisions;
c. any separate legal entity that is an organ of the government and/or its political subdivisions, or of which the government and/or its political subdivions own a majority stake; or
d. any employee of the aforementioned acting within the scope of their employment,

2. Defines "state immunity" as the right of a state not to be subject to another state's jurisdiction, either:
a. by being a named party in a case tried in another state's courts; or
b. by having a case which requests that another state's courts affect their rights, property, interests and/or activities,

3. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution, "host nation" as the nation seeking to exercise its jurisdiction over another state, and "target nation" as the state being subjected to this exercise of jurisdiction,

4. Directs the Independent Adjudicative Office (IAO) to, if requested to do so by any WA member state, assess whether a WA member states qualifies as:
a. "a state sponsor of internatinal terrorism"; or
b. lacking an "independent judiciary", which is defined as any judiciary that can reasonably be expected to try cases involving its state fairly and independently,

5. Requires WA member states to recognise the state immunity of all WA member states, except for cases where:
a. the target nation, as assessed by the IAO, qualifies as a state sponsor of international terrorism;
b. the target nation, as assessed by the IAO, lacks an independent judiciary;
c. the target nation consented to the trial, by written or verbal communication to the court, contract and/or international agreement;
d. the target nation participated in the trial beyond what could be reasonably construed as necessary to exercise a valid claim of state immunity, including, but not limited to, notifying the court about the claim of immunity and any fact finding necessary for a valid claim of immunity;
e. the target nation initiated the proceedings, including cases where it is subject to a valid and related counterclaim to its proceedings;
f. the allegation against the state is industrial espionage;
g. the alleged wrongdoing happened in relation to commercial activity in the host nation between the target nation and a citizen of any state/legal entity from any state, not including the host nation itself;
h. the case concerns an employment contract between the target nation and any person, whose employment requires their presence in the host nation, excluding any person that enjoys diplomatic immunity,

6. Clarifies that this proposal in no way affects states' rights and duties with regards to international courts and tribunals.
 
Last edited:
PLease indulge me, but do we not have an International Court for nations in the WA? I may have misread this, but the IAO just sounds to me like the ICC
 
PLease indulge me, but do we not have an International Court for nations in the WA? I may have misread this, but the IAO just sounds to me like the ICC
The IAO indeed already exists as it enforces WA resolutions (GAR440, I believe). This proposal deals with situations where a state gets sued in the national courts of another state under national law. That's different from int'l courts (which enforce international law). I figured the IAO - based on its current tasks - would be able to fulfill the duties outlined in clause 4.
 
Just as a general note of clarification, as I got some questions about this proposal:

In the status quo, there is nothing preventing state A from being sued in the national courts of state B (except for national law, which isn't the same everywhere). However, in most instances, state A should be sued in its own courts. This proposal does just that. It requires state B to prevent state A from being sued in its courts, except in the instances listed.

While it may seem like state A could just refuse to pay any damages awarded by the court, that would only cause further tension. State B would be forced to seize state A's assets within its territory to enforce the court's ruling (like the US regularly does to North Korea). Such situations should be prevented as much as possible.

IAO is currently has some tasks under GAR440. Now, they'll also determine whether countries qualify as "state sponsor of international terrorism" or lacking an indepent judiciary, because either would be an exception to state immunity (i.e. 5(a)(b)).
 
Last edited:
I noticed nobody pointed this out, so I guess I should.
Here in TNP there is an avenue to ask for feedback while you are drafting of proposals, though typically they can go here instead:
(Definitely should do so if you are new and seeking opinion, there are some WALL members from outside TNP who do look here too)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top