[ADVISORY QUESTION] Ability to file for a trial

The Conclave
1

Hello, Arbiters.

I’ve been wondering about who can sue in what circumstances, so I’d like to ask about a scenario as described below.

Say a nation is banned (nation A) is banned by an RO (without order by the Administration) but Nation A takes no action against the ban to the Conclave. Nation B is  witnesses this action, and wishes to take the issue to the Conclave.

  1. Is there any way Nation B can sue on behalf of Nation A, assuming Nation A is neutral on the matter? What if Nation A gives explicit confirmation for Nation B to do this on behalf of Nation A? More importantly, in both scenarios - assuming all evidence is in order, the ban was done illegally/questionably, and the Conclave would move the matter to full trial if Nation A themselves was brining up the case - would this suit be moved to full trial if Nation B brought it up?

  2. Is there any way Nation B can take action against the RO within the Conclave that can lead to a full trial against the RO? Or is Nation A the only nation who can sue the RO, because Nation A was the only nation who was banned in this incident?

  3. Would it be possible to legislate the right for Nation B to sue on behalf of Nation A (under the theoretical circumstances in question 1)? Would this be be possible in a regular old statutory act, or would this right need to be enshrined in the Concordat?

2

Concordat Article F.1 guarantees to each Citizen the right to appeal any government action against them. This right does not extend to government actions against third parties. I don’t predict Conclave granting Citizens the privilege of doing so, either, even if it can be argued that it is legal to hear a third-party appeal.

I’m not sure we’ve established what entity exactly is subject to prosecution in a suit against government action. It would seem, however, that it would be the specific acting officer except where the government itself assumes responsibility. The East Pacific, in that sense, can exercise sovereign immunity.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

3

I agree with Wallenburg.

Regarding question three, a Concordat amendment would be in order.