[Commonwealth Court] Revisions

[Nathan]

This debate is open to the current signatories of this Convention (Chryse, Elwynn, Ransenar, Natopia, Sanama, Shireroth, Graecia)

The question is:

Do the signatories wish to hold a formal amendment vote to update the language and any necessary revisions; or shall the Secretariat be permitted to update the language of the text to reflect the current terminology.

Updated terms:

Commonwealth Court -> Common Court of the MTO
Primate of the Commonwealth -> Secretary-General

Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court.

1.Any State who has signed and ratified the General Membership Treaty and been accepted into the Commonwealth, may sign and ratify, in accordance with its own constitutional procedure, the present Convention on the Commonwealth Court

2.The Parties to this Convention hereby establish the Commonwealth Court (“CC”, “the Court”) as an independent and free court of justice and law.

3.The Court shall have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to international dispute between signatory nations.

4.The Court shall have the power to interpret the Treaties and Conventions of the Commonwealth, subject to the Treaties and Conventions themselves.

5.The Court shall consist of a panel of three jurists independent of the government of the participatory States, elected by the signatory nations of this treaty. The election shall be overseen by the Primate of the Commonwealth. The Jurists of the Commonwealth Court need not be national representatives.

6. Disputes within a nation about a treaty or convention are dealt with by the concerning nations established court.

7. A signatory nation may grant, through the legal processes of that nation, additional powers to the Commonwealth Court, within the Jurisdiction of that signatory nation. The Commonwealth Court is not required to hear cases stemming from this clause.

8.This Convention may be amended by a qualified majority of the State Parties exceeding three fourths of the votes cast.

[Ric]

Chryse:

These changes make sense as they are purely cosmetic. I do not think a vote in itself is necessary, but it couldn't hurt. After that, perhaps we could appoint the court once more.

[Malliki]

An editorial update does not require a vote in my view. I echo the position that we should appoint the court again.