It Strikes me as a little unfair that if you face the same people who suspended you in the appeal, they might be biased.

Is there some sort of independent arbitrator for these situations?

:wall:

BTW - I assume he's talking about Firefly Islands' Ejection.

It's a valid point.

We do have a Dispute Resolution law but it was not designed to handle a dispute with the government and a member.

I think the process would be to seek a review by the cabinet. (you are right you are most likely to get the same results unless some new shocking facts become known). If the member thought that the results were still unfounded they could post in the open forum their side of the story and if they have some grounds other members of the region might start asking questions of the cabinet.

In the Firefly case, it is so open and shut I can't imagine what grounds he would use for appeal... (too much insane root maybe)

Having a true appeal process means starting a judicial branch of the government. Not sure how much support that has since so far the cabinet has only applied the law where the was a clear violation.

You can clearly argue that it would be fairer to have a "court" system, I think the question is do we really need one?

I'm not asking for a full court system.

I am asking for an arbitration committee, appeals committee.

Look at professional associations. A boss might fire an employee, but an arbitrator might give an overview upon appeal.

I cannot tell that the PM uses direct authority over the Minister of Justice. If not, the Minister of Justice might remand himself from all rulings of the Cabinet concerning suspensions and expulsions. Then he and the deputy can view the case upon appeal.

Or, of course, in many American towns and states, judges are elected by the people. Why not just create one independent judge used only on appeals processes.

There are several solutions. And I think FI deserves to make the appeal if he wants to. But if it's open and shut, then the hearing should be a short one.

Blah Blah Blah ALincoln

I'll answer this relating a story.

When I was on the Student Association in college, we had a few students complain about the activity fees they had to pay because we didn't have a gym on campus and there wasn't really any field or anything around to use as a sports area or anything, so they figured they were being fleeced.

It was explained to them that the fee was for the use of the student lounge (which had a free pool table, a free foosball table, a free air hockey table, a 52" tv, a Game Cube and Xbox for the students to play and really nice leather couches), the lawyer we retained for student use, the health plan, etc.

There was one student who still wasn't impressed and kept saying that he had never used the student lounge, had his own lawyer and health plan and yadda yadda yadda.

I had to explain to him that even though he didn't use them, they were there for his convience and would be there for him if he DID need them.

It was just something we set up so that when it was needed, it was there for the students to use.

I think the same thing should be done in this case. While we don't use it often, it is always good to have set up for when a situation arises. It would be much better to have things in place rather than have to quickly set things up on a short notice as there was an issue that needed/wanted to be appealed.

It is ALWAYS good to be prepared, even if you don't think you'll have to use the item often.

While it may be something to consider, in this case it's moot. Firefly has been eliminated from NS. Placeing him beyond the appeals process and and action well beyond the powers of Chex.

Oh - for sure. I don't think there is ANY grounds for appeal there.

But in future, there might be a case that is worthy of appeal. Always good to have our bums covered.

I think that our bums may already be covered. In the thread where the suspension is explained, the evidence, Firefly Islands telegram to various NS delegates, and the constitutional statutes are referenced, in what I think are clear ways. The matter is also covered in less detail in the MoRA report. The reasons for action are spelled out by the constitution and we have followed the constitution.

Just to clarify - I'm speaking for future problems. Not Firefly.

I think the suggestions in alincoln's second post are worth review. There are a whole range of solutions to this problem, including what we currently have.

I think his key point is that the review is done by the same people who voted on the punishment. I think the idea of having the MoJ not vote to be available for later review has potential. I could see a process where the MoJ then heads up an arbitratration panel as another option.

I would have thought it should be the other way around - the Justice department is surely the first port of call on such matters - an independant panel would be the second stage.

As it currently sits, in this region, the MoJ is mostly responsible for drafting laws. The bit about heading up the dispute resolution is misleading. The dispute resolution process pretty quickly removes the MoJ for the process. (not that we have ever used it yet).

I wasn't thinking about multiple layers of process. My original point in this thread is that the current process has worked fine so multiple levels of review seem a bit much. But the current process does leave it's self open to being called unfair based on the point that alincoln raised.

The only problem I see with the current dispute legislation is in clause 3, where it is assumed that if the MoJ is party to the case the PM is not. In the event that the Cabinet as a whole is one of the disputants, this would be potentially unfair.

The next in line, I suspect should be the deputy MoJ, then deputy PM. If it gets past that point, I suspect we should be asking another region to supply a Judge or a trial process, as internal order has clearly broken down.

Whether the MoJ votes or not, that minister would still be biased by discussion that had already occurred on the subject.

I fail to see your point JG. I'm talking about the appointment of arbitrators under the dispute resolution process.

The dispute resolution process is designed to address disputes between individuals. It's a slightly different matter to be reviewing a cabinet decession.

I see nothing in it (apart from my previous point) which prevents it being used by groups rather than individuals.

I would be more than happy if, in the case of a punitive appeal, an extra-regional judge were brought in. I don't know if it violates the constitution in any way.

My second choice would be a seperately elected judge of appeals, used only in appealling punitive rulings, and whose rulings could be overturned by the unanimous vote of the cabinet.

If the MoJ has no independent power from the PM, then he could not hear appeals, since his rulings would be tinged by the rulings and influence of the PM.

Frankly, though, I think the best mode would be a temporary appeals arbitration committee named by the cabinet, used in a single case, and then disbanded. Call it a jury if you will (and I do love juries). A majority vote would be required to overturn punishment, and (since this is a website), guilt would be presumed, and the appellate would be required to prove innocece.

The temporary nature would eliminate bureaucracy, the group of independent citizens would insure impartiality, and the appellate would be insured of a fair appeal.

I've said this before, our dispute resolution process is very weak.

If you skip over the section after section after section of who can be an arbiter you are left with a one paragraph process. Which boils down to the arbiter will help you with your problem.

If you only use this process between individuals and they both respect the arbiter the process should work. If you start trying to resolve disputes about the finer points of our laws as applied to a specific case then I don't believe the current dispute resolution process would cut it.

I think its a little stronger than that. Having gone through the process of appointing the arbiter(s), their decision is final. That's good. It gives closure. At the end of the day, you need a decision, and you need to trust someone's judgement to give that decision.

The detail on the selection process is to make it scrupulously fair. Again, I think that's good. The common alternative is to pre-appoint one or more Judges. They then may be involved in the case, or might not be trusted by the disputants, so you're back into complications again.

We have a complex and formal court system in TPC. It works moderately well for us, but we end up using it a lot for minor matters, and don't always get a real sense of resolution when it deals with major matters. I don't think it would suit the Canadian style very well.

To illustrate what I mean I'll provide you an example of the arbitration process from the CDR site (which also has a mediation process that might be more applicable for appeals):

---

1. ARBITRATION
   Arbitration is a voluntary process whereby nations, regions, or documented groups of nations or regions can attempt to resolve a dispute with the assistance of a neutral arbitration panel.
   
   Arbitration proceedings could result in a variety of outcomes or recommendations, including case closure; termination of the mediation without agreement; or stipulated settlement. Arbitration will result in a report of resolution, or the lack there of, from the Panel Chair.
   
   Further, Arbitration settlement will result in the imposition by the Panel of binding resolution on the parties. Published settlements, and the pleadings upon which they are based, are documents on file with the Congress.
   
2. USE OF ARBITRATION
   The decision to employ arbitration and the timing of its initiation are in the sound discretion of the parties to the dispute. Arbitration is not appropriate if its use would jeopardize the public interest or only serve to delay the matter.
   
   Any NationStates nation, region, or documented group of nations or regions has the right to request binding arbitration to settle a dispute with any other nation, region, or documented group of nations or regions where not prohibited by previous agreement.
   
3. INITIATION OF ARBITRATION
   The request for arbitration should generally come from one of the parties to the dispute. Arbitration will be employed only in the case where all parities to the dispute agree to do so and have accepted the jurisdiction of the Congress Arbitration Panel. This request shall not be ignored and must be processed in due time as the issue warrants.
   
   The Congress Arbitration Panel shall act as the sole arbitrator between the disputing parties and issue the final judgment. This judgment may not be appealed to any other agency or court and shall be binding between the parties.
   
4. SELECTION OF ARBITATION PANEL
   The Chief Mediator shall establish a Panel to handle any dispute filed with the Congress unless a majority vote of the members of Congress requests the panel not be established. All Arbitration Panels shall be presided over by a Panel Chair, who is a member of Congress appointed by the Chief Mediator. All Panels shall consist of a jury of three arbitrators. The Panel Chair and one additional arbitrator selected by each of the two parties seeking arbitration. The arbitrators selected should be chosen from the list of approved mediators maintained by the Congress. The arbitrators shall adhere to the accepted standards of integrity, impartiality, and competence required of the Congress.
   
   If the parties mutually agree upon a arbitrator from a source other than the Congress list, a copy of the resume of the agreed-upon arbitrator shall be forwarded to Congress for its consideration as an addition to the pool of Congress arbitrators.
   
   No member of Congress or Congress approved arbitrator involved in a dispute, either directly or through a puppet nation, may be a part of any arbitration or serve on the Panel presiding over the same dispute.
   
   The Congress forum is the only agency through which dispute parties may contract with an arbitrator. The Chief Mediator will provide, upon request, a list of qualified mediators and their respective experience and qualifications.
   
5. ATTENDANCE AT ARBITRATION
   All involved parties shall register with the Congress forum to gain access to the arbitration session(s), which shall be public unless requested otherwise. Should a party to the dispute under arbitration not login into the forum within 7 days after their last post, prior to settlement, the arbitration will terminated with the exception of the party making prior arrangement or at the discretion of the Panel Chair.
   
   Any party to the arbitration may have the assistance of other nations. Other nations may attend the arbitration only with the permission of the Panel Chair.
   
6. ARBITRATION STATEMENTS
   The mediator will determine the manner in which the issues in dispute shall be framed and addressed. The parties to the dispute should expect that the mediator will request a pre-arbitration statement outlining facts, issues, and perspectives in advance of the arbitration session. At a time established by the mediator, such statements shall be exchanged by the parties to the dispute unless they agree otherwise. Likewise, other information may be exchanged upon the agreement of the parties.
   
7. AUTHORITY OF ARBITRATION PANEL
   The Panel will hear all sides of the dispute, with any interested parties able to table evidence and/or arguments in writing with the Panel which shall be placed in the applicable topic thread. The Panel shall be, at all times, free to ask questions of any witness, and shall have the power to seek out and introduce evidence and invite the witnesses of its choosing to give evidence. Whenever necessary, the Panel may also obtain expert advice concerning technical aspects of the dispute. The Panel hearing the case will then weigh the evidence and make a binding decision, guided by the Panel Chair, to resolve the dispute.
   
   The Panel decides in accordance with the Congress Rules of Arbitration, applicable interregional treaties and conventions in which the parties are a signatory, general accepted principles of law and, as subsidiary means, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists.
   
8. SETTLEMENTS
   The Panel Chair will issue a report of settlement, or the lack there of. The final decision will be posted in the Case Thread and any appropriate agreed upon message board(s)
   
9. TERMINATION OF ARBITRATION
   The Panel Chair may terminate the arbitration process at any time.
   
   If the arbitration ends without a resolution of the matter, the parties shall proceed as if arbitration had not taken place.
   
10. CONFIDENTIALITY
    Arbitration may be confidential if requested by at least one of the parties to the dispute. The parties and the Panel agree not to disclose, transmit, introduce, or otherwise use opinions, suggestions, proposals, offers, or admissions obtained or disclosed during the arbitration by any party or any Panel arbitrator as evidence in any other action, or their proceeding, including a lawsuit or other dispute resolution process, unless authorized in writing by all other parties to the arbitration or compelled by law, except that the fact that a arbitration has occurred shall not be considered confidential.

That maybe in such a clear cut case. Ambiguity is the assassin of democracy as democracy as a concept is so ambiguous, and for cases where the evidence is not as black and white, perhaps a consitutional process should be implemented.

Apart from the pre-selected pool of arbiters, and the immedtiate move to a panel of 3, I see little substantive difference from our own process.