This is the draft charter of The Balkans International Court of Justice.
As of now this working paper is open for amendments.


The Balkan International Court of Justice
Proposal document

1- Formation

1.1- The Balkan International Court of Justice will be established, according to the precepts contained on this document, and following the principles of the Balkanic Peninsula Peace Agreements, and maintaining the founding principles of cooperation, peace and peaceful coexistence.

1.2- The Balkan International Court of Justice, shall rule without preference and/or distinction from any nation in The Balkans, and shall maintain the principles of justice, equiality and tolerance.

1.3- The Balkan International Court of Justice shall be formed by 2 Judges representing the widest range of political and judicial personalities that form the region. This judges shall be in office for a period of 2 months and will be elected by popular vote by all nations in The Balkans. Any nation can be nominated for the office of Judge and must accept this nominiation before the voting.

1.4- The 2 nations chosen to serve for the 2 month term, must appoint a judge of its own judicial system, and during that perriod, such citizen shall uphold the status of International Civil Servant and must preside and judge without interference from its own or other national government, both regional of extra-regional.

1.5- Should judge decide to abandon office, a special voting shall be held to determine a replacement for the remainder of the term.

1.6- Reelection of judges is possible, but must not exceed 3 consecutive terms.

2- Inherence

2-1- The Balkan International Court of Justice shall hold voluntary juridsiction over disputes and controversies between nations in The Balkans.

2.2- The Balkan International Court of Justice may only act in disputes or controversies with other regions, if a nation of The Balkans is participant in such controversie, and only with the prior authorization of such nation.

2.3- The Balkan International Court of Justice, will mediate disputes withing nations of The Balkans, after all nations involved have agreed to submit their dispute under the jurisdiction of The Court, and accept that the final deliberation of The Court must be accepted and enforced in all nations involved, accordingly.

2.4- The Balkan International Court of Justice will be able to interact with other regional groups and/or specialized agencies of The Balkans, but not hold jurisdiction over them.

2.5- Any nation, group or agency can ask for consultative support from The Balkan International Court of Justice and must agree to determine wether the determination of The Court will be dictaminated as a final desition or meerely a consultative document.

2.6- The base documents for modus operandi of The Balkan International Court of Justice will be the International Public Right, The Balkanic Peninsula Peace Agreements and shall observe regional treaties or diplomatic documents presented to The Court.

2.7- The Court is facultated to make declarations to the region, via The Judges or specified public affairs officers.

The Holy Empire of Byzantine Territories believes that as well-intentioned as the proposal for a Balkan Court of Justice as issued by Thracia is, there are serious concerns that must be addressed before the Empire could possibly approve this addition to the Balkanic Peace Accords. Additionally, should the Court be established as proposed, the Empire will only accept the original Balkanic Peace Accords and will not submit issues to the Court or abide by any decisions issued by that Court.

Our chief concern is the number of judges. We believe that two judges is far too small a number to represent "the widest range of political and judicial nationalities."
We propose a larger number of Judges, perhaps 5-12, that would be elected for longer terms. Judges would vote on each issue after hearing the case. No nation should be allowed to elect more than one judge. Each case would be allowed two appeals and if plaintiff and defendent agree, cases could be submitted to vote by national representatives of ALL Balkan nations.

We welcome an ongoing discusion before any permanent decision is made.

- Imperial Senate of Byzantine Territories

Montfortslavia, in escence, agrees with the points made by the Byzantine Territories. However, we do have some comments on the previous ammendments:

*The number of judges may be reduced, but taking into account that there are right now 28 nations in the region, and of those, more than 50% are governments without involvement in regional affairs. That is why the number of judges was set to 2 with a bimestral rotation.

*Submition of cases to the court is voluntary with the consent of all parts involved.

*The process of defendants and plaintifs would create more tensions and complications, that is why this court follows a Salomonic model. The case is presented, all parts have equal rights to explain and the court makes its desition based on justice and facts.

The Thracian Minister of Justice has read the Court of Justice proposal, and she would first like to correct the impression of Byzantine Territories that the proposal is Thracia's. It is actually Montfortslavia's.

Here are the Thracian government's initial comments about the Court of Justice Proposal:

1. We are, in prinicple, in favor of a Court of Justice as it is described in the proposal.

2. We propose three instead of two judges (or judging countries). An odd number of judges is important, because it prevents tie situations.

3. We propose life appointments. Judges/judging nations should be elected for life (i.e., until the nation ceases to exist). That would remove the pressure from judges to please the applicants to the court in order to facilitate their re-election.

4. Court decisions must be binding for the applicants and they must be enforced. When it comes to enforcement the UN delegate would inevitably play a crucial role. Could the UN delegate be an ex-officio member of the Court, i.e., the third judge/judging nation?

Nikolina Lenkova, Minister of Justice.

The Federation agrees in establishing three judges and life long terms until such nation ceases to exist or choses to resign from charge.
We also support the proposal of the UN Delegate being default judge

We stand corrected concerning the origins of the Balkans International Court of Justice. We commend Montfortslavia for a timely and much needed proposal.

We opposs the permanent, life-long appointment of judges. We believe that this would place an inordinate amount of power in the hands of two or three nations. There must be some provision for the removal/replacement of judges other than unilateral action. Perhaps each signator of the Balkanic Peace Accords could be allotted one Justice (we like this term better than Judge). Nations that have signed the BPAs are (a) more likely to be regionally active and (b) more likely to utilize the court. Thracia as founder and UN delegate could appoint 1 or 2 Justices as needed so that the number of Justices is always odd. This would mean that Thracia could have 2 positions if needed, but we think that we can all agree that Thracia has a proven record of justice and fairness in regional matters. If all other Justices unanimously vote to remove a Justice, than that nation would be removed from the court. New nations would need to have signed the BPAs and to be endorsed by at least one Justice and pass a majority vote of sitting Justices.

We humbly submit these suggestions for debate and discussion.

- John Tzimiskes, Foreign Minister of Byzantine Territories

OK, we agree with the Byzantine Territories that there needs to be some sort of impeachment and removal mechanism for justices of the Court of Justice. As for the number of justices, we are worried that a large number of justices would make the court unwieldy.

Nikolina Lenkove, Minister of Justice.

Montfortslavia agrees with the points of view exposed by the Byzantine Territories to include the BPPAs as requisits for consideration of office.
Also the term Justice seems more appropiriate.

1. The People's Republic of Annoyastan agrees in principle with the goals and aspirations of the Balkan Court.

2. We would have it that any nation signing on to the Balkan Court Charter would be members and eligible for a seat as Justice.

3. We endorse the idea of 3 justices.

4. We would rotate these seats as justices amongst all members of the court, with three month terms.

5. We would require all decisions to be reached by consensus, with the judges agreeing unanimously on the decision, that the court might speak with one voice.

6. We would suggest that some thought be given as to consequences for those that might defy the decision of the court. Economic/Diplomatic sanctions? Embargos? Our concern is that the court may be seen as a paper tiger if it is not without some means of enforcing its decisions.

7. We endorse the idea of the removal of a justice by unanimous vote of the court's member nations (excluding the nation of the justice involved).

Lev Seyno
Minister of Justice

1. We agree with the principles behinde the Court and we are ready to sign a treaty regarding it, as soon as all details are set.

2. The number of judges should be three or five.

3. The term for a judge should be two or three month. Elections are not the right mean to select judges. All nations signing the treaty should appoint a judge, by rotation. The UN delegate should keep the calendar of the rotating mechanism.

4. The UN Delegate SHOULD NOT be a judge in any circumstances. Her role must only be to put in practice the Court decisions. Some separation of power must be made.

Tolomakis is not ready to negociate the final point above. We will join the Court only if the mentioned principle is respected.

Pepestonia confers with the Tomolakian delegation. Giving permanent seat to the UN Delegate, whoever he may be gives it extraordinary amounts of power.
We see that a UN Delegate is a link between the UN and the region, but its not "the leader" of this region. Yes, he is appointed with special duties and privileges but we think that in the interest of equiality, the un delegate nation can be elected as a Justice, but is not default permanent justice.

And we believe that in order to ensure the aplication of the cout´s desitions, nations could be sanctioned if no compliance is met, and finaly they could be legitimately expelled from the region.

Pepestonia encourages the creation of this court with 3 judges as soon as possible.

The Democratic States of Leidestrad agrees Tomolakia and Pepestonia on the matters regarding the separation of power between the Justices and the UN Delegate.

The inclusion of the Un delegate in the Court of Justice was not a demand but just a suggestion. Having noted the opposition to that suggestion, we have decided to withdraw it.

But, it is only logical to say that without the acceptance or consent of the UN delegate, the Court would not be able to enforce its decisions or impose any penalty.

We do insist on three justices. The rotation system is fine, but election is more preferable, because keep in mind that NOT all nations participate in regional affairs.

Nikolina Lenkova, Minister of Jutice.

The People's Republic of Annoyastan believes that the UN delegate should have an equal chance to be a justice.

We endorse the 3 justice concept.

However, we feel that ejection from the region is too harsh a penalty for nations that go against court decisions. Such a penalty should be a penalty of last resort, (and relates more to game-play than political disputes.)

Annoyastan is in favor of rotating judges. Let us encourage other nations to participate more fully. If a signatory nation does not respond when it is their turn to name a justice, or when there is a case before the court, the next nation on the list may be called upon. It is assumed that nations that sign onto the court charter will be interested in participating.

We would encourage Tolmakia to review its stance on its final point. Surely it is only just that all nations signing the charter be eligible for court representation.

Finally, we again suggest that all court decisions be by consensus; a unanimous opinion of the three sitting justices. We feel that this requirement will beget compromises that will promote regional peace and stability.

Lev Seyno
Minister of Justice

The Democratic Republic of The Bulgarite is ready to sign a treaty regarding the establishment of the Court.

We agree with the three justices concept.

We also agree with the rotation as a means of "electing" justices.

Although we agree with Tolomakia and Pepestonia regarding the UN delegate, I am sure that all will agree that in order for this Court to have actual power in the region, we will need the delegate or this Court wil just be ,as Annoyastan had already said, a "paper tiger".

In order to prevent the above, we propose the establishment of another organisation that would enforce the decisions made by the Court. This will be an organisation in which a significant role will be given to the UN delegate. This will be a military organisation uniting the armed forces of the countries members of the court.

Feel free to coment on the last issue.

Todor Georgiev, Foreign Minister of The Bulgarite
Nikolai Petkov, Minister of Justice

Indeed, but we must decide a delicate balance in this. Will the UN Delagate be a default Justice or will he be given the opportunity to be elected as any normal nation?

The Bulgarite's proposal for an enforcement organization seems reasonable to Thracia. If we do agree to establish such an organization, then the UN delegate can be kept out of the Court, and the justices can be appointed or elected from the other nations.

We also agree with the condition, proposed by the Byzantine Territories, that justices could only be from countries that have signed the Balkan Peace Agreement.

Nikolina Lenkova, Minister of Justice.

The Government of Annoyastan would prefer not to see the establishment of an enforcement organization, and sees no need for such a continuing bureaucracy. Additionally, we would prefer that initial enforcement actions were of a diplomatic and economic nature.

We would also prefer that the UN delegate, whoever that may be, participate in the court as any other nation.

Finally we strongly disagree that only nations signing the Balkanic Peace Agreement should be eligible to be justices. We believe that we should encourage membership in the Balkan court, and not discourage participation from countries who may not have signed the peace accords. Signing onto the court charter should make any nation eligible to participate fully in the workings of the court.

Lev Seyno
Minister of Justice

Montfortslavia agrees with the points expressed by Annoyastan. Altough an enforcement agency would be a reasonable creation, we believe that in the Charter we could establish a series of procedures to enforce court decitions, ranging from economic sancitions, embargoes, reductions of terriroty, military operations and finally expulsion from the region.

As for the participation of the UN Delegate, we consider that each nation can be elected as Justice, in this case a nation presently under the charge of UN Delegate can be elected as Justice for the 2 month period, but with the same rights and privileges as any Justice nation.

Regarding the BPPA and the IBCJ, we do condiser that the signatorie santions be considered for the office of Justice. This, because the BPPA is the backbone document of the IBCJ. Should a nation wish to run for the charge of Justice, the only way to ensure its legitimate and righteous performance as representation of Jusitce in the region, is if such nation follows the basic principles of peace and cooperation presented in the BPPA.

As of now, we ask all nations that have demonstrated their interest in the IBCJ, to post their final positions in a simple reply to this topic. Preferably in a shematic form. Ex:

The Most Serene Republic of Montfortslavia
Proposed Ammendments:

1) point 1
2) point 2
3) point 3...

After such final statements form each nation, a charter will be elaborated and presented for voting and implementation.

Final points and suggestions of the Thracian government
with regard to the International Court of Justice:

1. There should be three justices.

2. They should be elected.

3. Each country that has signed the Balkan Peninsula Peace Agreement (including the UN regional delegate) should be able to nominate a candidate.

4. The three candidates who receive the most votes should become justices

5. There should be a two-month term for each justice, and elections at the end of this term. If a justice resigns, for whatever reason, before the end of the two-month term, then the candidate who received the fourth highest number of votes should replace the resigned justice.

6. A justice can be removed if at least half of the signatory countries to the Court of Justice Agreement collectively demand his/her remaoval.

7. Justices should be able to be elected for more than one term (if, of course, they receive the necessary number of votes).

8. A case should come before the Court only with the agreement of the countries involved. If one country brings a case to the Court unilaterally, the Court should ask the other country/countries if they would accept the court's decision. If the answer is negative, the court should not proceed with the case.

9. After a decision is issued, it should be binding, it should be implemented immediately, and it should be enforced with the help of the UN regional delegate. In case of resistence by one of the applicants, there should be a range of penalties to be imposed on it by the court and enforced with the help of the UN delegate. It is up to the court to determine whether a decision has been fully implemented or not. When a decision has been fully implemented, the Court should declare that this has happened.

10. When making a decision or judgement on a case the Justices should use the following:

a. the rules and regulations of the NationStates game;
b. The "peaceful and cooperative relations with each other" principle mentioned in the Balkans' world factbook entry;
c. all the articles of the Balkan Peninsula Peace Agreements;
d. previous decisions made by the court; and
e. solutions to crises or disputes that were found and implemented before the establishment of the Court, and satisfied all the parties involved.

11. When reaching a decision, unanimity of justices is desirable, but not necessary. 2 to 1 decisions should be recognized as valid.

Nikolina Lenkova, Minister of Justice.

The Pepestonian Federation agres with the 11 points established by Thracia
We would like to se a proposal charter in the next few days.

The Democratic Republic of The Bulgarite agrees with the points sugested by Thracia, excluding point 8 for this will only give a country a legitimate way to eveade the decisions of the Court. I think that every nation that signs the establishiment of the Court should accept its decisions. Of course the Court will have the right to turn down cases, if the justices decide so.

The Holy Empire endorses all points except point 7. We believe Justices should be limited to 1 term.

Secondly, we strongly oppose the use of military action to enforce court decisions. We believe that this would be a clear violation of the BPPA. Should military force ever be used to enforce a court decision, this government will consider the Balkanic Peninsula Peace Accords to be null and void.

The Democratic States of Leidestrad, considers that a military response to a violation of a Court desition, would not be a breach in the BPPAs, given that, such nation is already vioating the dicaminations of the Court.
In this case the military response would not be a non-motivaded agression, but a unified (non-unilateral) response to enforce the Courts desitions.

The Democratic Republic of The Bulgarite agrees with the statement of The Democratic States of Leidestrad. nations neglecting the decisions made by the Court cannot be tolerated. Although we agree that war should be the last resort.

The Holy Empire of Byzantine Territories respectfully suggests that the Bulgarite and Democratic States of Leidestrad reread the text of the Balkanic Penninsula Peace Accords.

Article 2 - The signatories hereby agree to renounce war as a way of expansion and / or political pressure to any nation in the Balkans and accepts the peaceful solution of controversies.

The Accords are very clear on this issue. War in order to exert political pressure (as in enforcing a court decision) is clearly banned. No exception is made for "multilateral" coalition actions.

Should military force be used to enforce Court decisions, all nations taking part in such action will be in violation of the BPPAs. The inclusion of force as a means of enforcement would require an amendment to the BPPAs and a subsequent ratification of said amendment by all signatory nations.

As previously stated, should force be authorized to carry out Court decisions without first amending the BPPAs, that document will be considered null and void by this government.

The Thracian government would like to emphasize that the Court should have A RANGE of penalties in its disposal in case a country does not comply with its decision. It is our opnion that war should not be one of these option. Besides, the main reason why we are trying to set up this Court is to avoid tensions within The Balkans that could lead to war. A better option for extreme penalty would be expulsion. But, before that extreme penalty, the Court, with the help of the UN regional delegate should try boycott, exclusion from certain projects, total shunning, and, with the help of Montfortslavia, exclusion from the regional forum.

Montfortslavia agrees with the points of view of all nations, and as such, will now proceed to present for all member nations, the preliminary charter of the Balkaninc International Court of Justice.

The preliminary charter will be available for download on the Documents section of the regional website. All nations are encouraged to rea it and propose final amendments before voting.

How can we download that document? There seems to be a problem regarding the download.

That is true. I keep getting an error message.

The Holy Empire of Byzantine Territories votes to accept the Charter of the International Court of Justice as presented by Montfortslavia.

We have downloaded the preliminarty charter of the Court of Justice from the Balkans' web-site. We read the text carefully and overall we agree with it.

However, we have one request for clarification, one request for change, and one stylistic comment.

Our request for clarification is this:

"1.4- All signatory nations can nominate two candidates for the Office of Justice in the following sequence:
A- A prime nominee, which receives a count of two votes and,
B- A second nominee which receives one vote."

Are these two candidates two nations or two justices? And why is it necessary to nominate two candidates instead of one?

Our request for change is this:

" 2.4- Removal of a Justice is possible by a unanimous vote of the court's member nations (excluding the nation of the justice involved)."

Can we change the unanimous vote to simple majority?

Finally, our stylistic comment is this:

The text could be improved if some spelling mistakes were corrected and some words were replaced with simpler ones.

Our government is prepared to sign this charter even without the changes we request, but we think the charter will be better if these changes were implemented.

Niklina Lenkova, Minister of Justice.

The Pepestonian Federation agrees with the points of view of Thracia. Nomination should only be of one Justice nation.
Other than that the Pepestonian Federation accepts the Charter.

The Bulgarite also thinks that a nation should nominate only one candidate. But except for this we accept the Charter.

Tolomakia will NOT join the BICJ.

Here is the final draft of the treaty that will establish
the Balkan International Court of Justice.

Because of the conflicts that have erupted in our region recently, establishing this court has, in Thracia's opinion, become quite urgent.

So, let's open this text to the approval of all the Balkan nations. And, let's establish the Court after this treaty gathers 10 approvals.

The Balkan International Court of Justice

I- Formation

1.1- The Balkan International Court of Justice shall be established according to the precepts contained in this document, and based on the principles of the Balkanic Peninsula Peace Agreements, and in accordance with founding principles of cooperation, peace and peaceful coexistence.

1.2- The Balkan International Court of Justice, shall rule without preference for and/or discrimination against any nation in The Balkans, and shall maintain and promote the principles of justice, equality, and tolerance.

1.3- The Balkan International Court of Justice shall have 3 Justices. This triad will be elected by popular vote amongst signatory nations nominated for the Office of Justice, and shall make at that time, no distinction between the UN Delegate and the signatory nations.

1.4- All signatory nations can nominate two candidates for the Office of Justice in the following sequence:
A- A prime nominee, which receives a count of two votes and,
B- A second nominee which receives one vote.

1.5- Voting will be held by popular vote.

1.6- Each nation will post an official reply with the two votes on a special section in the Regional Forum. The 3 nations that received the biggest number of votes will be chosen for the Office of Justice.

1.7- A signatory nation can nominate itself for the Office of Justice.

1.8- The Justices shall be in office for a period of 2 months and will be elected by popular vote by all nations in The Balkans. Any signatory nation can be nominated for the office of Justice and must accept this nomination before the voting.

1.9- Should there only be 3 nominees for the Office of Justice, they will be automatically ratified as Justices.

II-Functioning

2.0- Any nation may present a case to the Court, but only nations that have ratified the Balkanic Peninsula Peace Agreements are eligible for the office of Justice.

2.1- The 2 nations chosen to serve for the 2-month term, must appoint a judge of its own judicial system, and during that period, such citizen shall uphold the status of International Civil Servant and must preside and judge without interference from its own or other national government, both regional of extra-regional.

2.2- Should a Justice decide to abandon office, a special voting shall be held to determine a replacement for the remainder of the term.

2.3- Re-election of a Justice is possible, but must not exceed 3 consecutive terms.

2.4- Removal of a Justice is possible, justice by majority vote of the Court treaty's member nations (excluding the nation of the justice involved).

2.5- When making a decision or judgement on a case the Justices should use the following:
a. the rules and regulations of the NationStates game;
b. The "peaceful and cooperative relations with each other" principle mentioned in the Balkans' world factbook entry;
c. all the articles of the Balkan Peninsula Peace Agreements;
d. previous decisions made by the court; and
e. solutions to crises or disputes that were found and implemented before the establishment of the Court, and satisfied all the parties involved.

III- Inherence

3.6- The Balkan International Court of Justice shall hold jurisdiction over disputes and controversies between the signatory nations in The Balkans.

3.7- Should a non-signatory nation be involved in a controversy with a signatory nation, the Balkan International Court of Justice will offer voluntary jurisdiction over such matters, with the agreement of all nations involved, and its judgement will be compulsory.

3.8- The Balkan International Court of Justice may only act in disputes or controversies with other regions, if a nation of The Balkans is a participant in such controversy, and only with the prior authorisation of such nation.

3.9- The Balkan International Court of Justice, will mediate disputes within nations of The Balkans, after all nations involved have submitted their dispute under the jurisdiction of The Court, and acknowledge that the final deliberation of The Court must be accepted and enforced in all nations involved, accordingly.

3.10- The Balkan International Court of Justice will be able to interact with other regional groups and/or specialised agencies of The Balkans, but not hold jurisdiction over them.

3.11- The nations holding the offices of UN Regional Delegate and Founder will not be above the court. In the personae of sovereign nation, they shall hold the same rights and duties as all signatory nations, but can be called upon to reinforce the Courts decisions in the personae of UN Regional Delegate and Founder.

3.12- Any nation, group or agency can ask for consultative support from The Balkan International Court of Justice and must agree to determine whether the determination of The Court will be regarded as a final decision or merely a consultative document.

3.13- The base documents for modus operandi of The Balkan International Court of Justice will be the International Public Right, The Balkanic Peninsula Peace Agreements and shall observe regional treaties or diplomatic documents presented to The Court.

IV- Decisions/Judgements/Declarations

4.1- General consensus is aspired from the 3 Justices, but in cases of operability, a simple majority (2 to 1 vote) will be recognised as the will of the Court.

4.2- The Court has the power to make declarations to the region, via The Judges or specified public affairs officers.

V. Compliance/Enforcement

5.1. All signatory nations to the Balkan International Court of Justice Treaty, and especially the applicants in each case shall be expected and required to comply with the decisions or judgements of the Court.

5.2- The Court will determine the methods of enforcement of the Court's decisions, given the failure of compliance of a nation in that decision. However, such enforcement will never be in violation of the founding principles of the region and / or the Balkanic Peninsula Peace Agreements.

5.3- In outmost cases, a nation failing to comply with a Court's decision will be expelled from the region.

VI- Other/Additional Powers of the Court

6.1- The Court has the power to create special ad hoc committees with the discretion and approval of the Justices in charge, with the appropriate structure and operations.

6.2- The Court has the power to amend the Charter/Treaty, with the two-thirds majority vote from all signatory nations.

6.3- Any points or situations not contemplated or contained on this Charter will be decided at the Court's discretion.

The Most Serene Republic of Montfortslavia agrees to this charter and signs it today, September the 2nd of 2003.

Prime Minister Adrian R Montfort

The Free Republic of Thracia accepts this treaty and signs it today, September 2nd, 2003.

Demosthenes Yagcioglu, President of Thracia.

The Democratic Republic of The Bulgarite accepts and signs this treaty today, September 2nd, 2003.

Gen. Ivan Overlord, President of The Bulgarite

The Constitutional Monarchy of Byzanthine also supports this court, and we signed today, September 3rd of 2003 at 9:08 pm on GMT -04:00.

Emperor Franciscus Reginaldus.