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.
