In appreciation for opening our embassy, breakfast is on us:
**Sets up a table of muffins, butter, jam, pancakes, bacon, ham, scrambled eggs, strawberries, Hershey's kisses,coffee, tea, and hot chocolate**
Well, this week we'll be discussing the massive natural disaster currently happening in Brazil:
"How should the world react to and handle massive natural disasters, such as the wildfire in the amazon, that arguably will have an effect on the globe?"
WOW, so much time has passed since I last checked this region and it has all changed a lot... o-o
This week we go to good old Albion where we ask:
"Should Boris Johnston be allowed to suspend parliament with the Brexit deadline so close?"
International Business Times: https://www.ibtimes.com/court-bids-launched-stop-johnson-suspending-uk-parliament-2818968
Greetings from Tatenda
I am unaware of the last time anyone from Tatenda has made contact with this region, which I apologize if it has been a while. I am making my Embassy tour visiting all of our friends so share a warm hello, and to see how things are going. If you have any questions please feel free to TG me.
I regret to inform you that a decision has been made and since your member states number is lower then 20, we are closing our embassy. We wish you good luck in your future endeavors.
Presidential Chief of Staff, Intern MoFA
Hey, I hope everyone is starting to get back into the groove of school. Anyways, this week we will be looking at America's longest war in its history;
"Should the US negotiate with the Taliban to end the Afghanistan War?"
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/afghan-peace-effort-in-disarray-after-trump-ends-talks/2019/09/09/723936d4-d330-11e9-8924-1db7dac797fb_story.html
CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-taliban-afghanistan-the-bloody-road-to-peace-talks-on-and-off/
I'm alive! I've just been settling into college life right now. I apologize for being gone longer than expected, but hopefully things should return to a semi-regular schedule from this point on.
"Should Trump be allowed to use foreign policy for political wants?"
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/22/trump-ukraine-scandal-joe-biden
USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/22/donald-trump-joe-biden-ukraine-whistleblower-standoff-explained/2388648001/
I don't know if this is legal in your region, but of it's not, you have my consent to block it.
Anyways, onto the point,
We need members.
My region is down to 20 people since our leader left NationStates, and most of them aren't even active.
If you have any puppet states, I ask that you send them our way so we can get back on our feet.
This Dispatch is made to clear and properly arrange the Security Council Record.
WE all know many nations and regions have been Commended and condemned. So I felt to give all Commended nations as respect and all Condemned ones shame.
First lets see Commended nations.
Name of Nation
2] Todd McCloud
6] Ananke II
13] Commerce Heights
17] Warzone Codger
23] Bears Armed
24] The Bruce
36] TAO the Watcher
38] Evil Wolf
39] Luna Amore
40] Forever Fields
43] Nation of Quebec
45] Dyr Nasad
54] The Macabees
Now let's see the condemned nations
Name of Nation
3] Great Nepal
19] Reventus Koth
21] Chan Island
27] Koem Kab
Now Lets move to regions.
Name of Region
13] The MT Army
14] The Red Fleet
No time for the Condemned Regions
Name of Region
4] The Pacific
We all know that many regions were liberated lets see who were
Name of Region
9] St Abbaddon
10] South Pacific
13] Nazi Europa
This is the complete Security Council Data.
Lets Try to boycott all the condemn regions as well as nations,Hoped you liked it.
COURT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JUSTICE - CASE DECIDED
ATTN Member Region: The following decision has just been delivered and affirmed in the Court of International Law and Justice by the Judges of the Chamber of Interregional Affairs in the following case: Ecclestia re: Review of Application of the Interregional Anti-Bullying & Discrimination Accord (2019)
COURT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JUSTICE
COUR DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL ET JUSTICE
Case: Ecclestia re: Membership Status of Colonial Regions (2018)
Judges: Christadelphians (Head Judge) & The Noble Thatcherites
Party: Ecclestia - Elder of the Union of Christian Nations
Case Type: Legal Question - Interpretation of Accord
Judgement Delivered: 25th October 2019
The UCN is a signatory to the Interregional Anti-Bullying and Discrimination Accord (IABDA). The Accord states that signatories:
'COMMIT to make every effort to ensure that their Regions are free from all forms of bullying and discrimination.'
The Founder, Ecclestia has refered this decision to the CILJ for review to determine if the decision was made in accordance with the terms of the 'Interregional Anti-Bullying and Discrimination Accord'.
The primary questions before the Court include:
1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to hear this type of referal.
2. Whether the decision to close the Embassy with Farkasfalka was consistent with the terms of the 'Interregional Anti-Bullying and Discrimination Accord'.
Assessment of Jurisdiction
According to 6.1 the Charter of the Court of International Law and Justice 'The 'Chamber of Inter-Regional Affairs' shall hear all cases regarding, but not limited to inter-regional alliances, treaties, agreements and disputes between governments; nations and/or other polities in different regions and may be used as either a Court of Appeal or Original Jurisdiction, upon agreement.'
This clause does not expressly state 'accords' as an item this Chamber has jurisdiction to consider. As was discussed by the decision of The CILJ Clerk re: Membership Status of Colonial Regions (2018) Link, the question of whether the Chamber has the jurisdiction to consider a matter should be determined by whether an area listed under 6.1 of the CILJ Charter can be characterised as having the same effect as one of the listed areas. Definitions of 'treaty' or 'agreement' were not given in the aforementioned case necessitating the definition for the purpose of this case.
A treaty is commonly defined as 'an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organisations.' As inter-regional affairs are negotiated by Regions, the above definition shall be read to replace 'sovereign states' with 'regions'. Agreement (refered to by 6.1 of the CILJ Charter) shall also share this definition however must be entered into with the intention of being binding to come under the jurisdiction of this Chamber.
It can be clearly derived from the text of the 'Interregional Anti-Bullying and Discrimination Accord' (IABDA) Link that it is intended to be multi-regional in that there is a provision for a number of Regions to become a party to the accord and that it is intended to be binding on its member regions as it directs signatories to 'ratify [the] Accord in line with the regulations and procedures set forth by the domestic law of their region'.
It is clear that the IABDA has the same effect as an interregional agreement which the Chamber of Interregional Affairs does have jurisdiction over as per 6.1 of the CILJ Charter.
The following clause is also in text of the IABDA:
RECOGNISE the Court of International Law and Justice as having original jurisdiction for any disputes which may rise from time to time in reference to this Accord.
As the parties to this agreement explicitly agree for the CILJ to have jurisdiction over affairs related to the IABDA which is permitted by 6.1 of the Charter as well as the accord being able to be characterised as an agreement for the purposes of 6.1, the CILJ does have the ability and necessary jurisdiction to preside over this case.
Legality of Embassy Closure
One of the requirements of signatories to the IABDA binds parties to:
COMMIT to make every effort to ensure that their Regions are free from all forms of bullying and discrimination.
The first area to determine is whether this section of the agreement entitles parties to close Embassies. The language of the text is extremely strong in that regions must make every effort to ensure it is free from bullying & discrimination. 'Every effort' implies that all reasonable actions must be taken by a Region. This language is is very broad and instructs Regions to use every possible action to prevent bullying and discrimination. Based on this alone, if Region A is a party to the IABDA and there is a reasonable belief that having an Embassy with Region B could mean that any form of bullying and/or discrimination may come from this relationships, closing the Embassy would be a reasonable step in ensuring that they prevent bullying and discrimination thus remaining compliant with the terms of IABDA.
As a note, there may be a number of options available to a Region when faced with a perceived likelihood of bullying and/or discrimination. The charter does not mention whether an 'effort' or action needs to be proportionate to the level of bullying or discrimination and this questions falls beyond this case as the question was whether it was a valid (not proportionate) exercise. As the IABDA asks Regions 'to make every effort', it is the current view of this Chamber that proportionality of the action taken by a region to prevent or condemn perceived or actual bullying and/or discrimination (noting there are offences which can have a higher or lower impact than others) should not be considered unless the action is so clearly disproportionate or extends beyond the intention of the IABDA which is to ensure Regions are free from bullying and discrimination.
The next question in this case is whether a reasonable belief could be formed that having an Embassy with Farkasfalka could prevent the Union of Christian Nations being free from all forms of bullying and harassment. A objective test will be used to assess whether this belief was reasonable. It should not be sufficient if the belief was subjective as this would enable any action to be taken by any Region if someone formed a belief that bullying or discrimination could occur even if this belief was formed irrationally or not in good faith. This would clearly extend beyond the intention of the agreement.
The facts show that the Founder, Ecclestia formed a belief that 'Farkasfalka has made statements denying the holocaust, promoting anti-semitism, supporting white supremacy and neo-nazi organisations. These are things which I know we are all strongly uncomfortable with.' After having reviewed the RMB of Farkasfalka, it can be seen that comments along these lines have been made and promoted. This behaviour can be clearly categorised as indirect discrimination, as defined in the IABDA as it 'maliciously disadvantages a person or group because of a personal characteristic' including: race, religion.' As such, there is significant evidence to suggest that the belief formed was reasonable. As the Union of Christian Nations allows nations in Embassy Regions to post on their RMB, it is reasonable to believe that a nation from Farkasfalka could post comments ammounting to bullying and/or discrimination. As a result the Government of the Union of Christian Nations did act consistently with its obligations as a party to the IABDA. This is because the government had formed a reasonable belief that having an Embassy with Farkasfalka placed the Union of Christian Nations in a position where there was a higher likelihood that they may be subject to bullying and/or discrimination and that by closing an Embassy, they were making an effort to ensure bullying and/or discrimination did not eventuate from this source.
As such, the decision to close the Embassy with Farkasfalka was consistent with the terms of the 'Interregional Anti-Bullying and Discrimination Accord' and no further action needs to be taken by the Government of the Union of Christian Nations.
This hereby marks the end of the case Ecclestia re: Review of Application of the Interregional Anti-Bullying & Discrimination Accord (2019)
Return to the Court of International Law and Justice