GUM Supreme Court case 2024-1
17 April 2024
Notice of advisory opinion proceeding
Case reference: 2024-1
Assigned to Newton von Uberquie (AJ)
SUPREME JUSTICE AUGUSTUS: The Chair has submitted the following reference to the Supreme Court:
"Would resolutions approved by Quorum, whether in a regular session or a special event (such as a 24-hour Quorum), be binding to all Members, just on those that had supported the resolution, or not binding at all? If possible, could the Supreme Court also extend its decision to cover resolutions proposed and adopted during regular Quorum sessions?"
The Court will give its opinion soon. Anyone who wishes to make submissions must contact @unknown-role in foyer as soon as possible.
Reference - opinion
Case Reference: 2024-1
Assigned to Newton von Uberquie (AJ)
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE VON UBERQUIE: I hereby issue my opinion on the reference submitted by The Chair, Anthony Barauskis on the 17th of April, 2024.
The Question was:
"Would resolutions approved by Quorum, whether in a regular session or a special event (such as a 24-hour Quorum), be binding to all Members, just on those that had supported the resolution, or not binding at all? If possible, could the Supreme Court also extend its decision to cover resolutions proposed and adopted during regular Quorum sessions?"
As this question is broken up into a series of conditions, I shall address each condition separately and offer my opinion on possible measures that may be pursued by the Chair and Quorum in resolving the question.
Firstly, to define a resolution. Under 1.II.7.(1).(e) of the GUM Charter, resolutions are to be considered an "international treaty" or "convention" "to which the GUM is Party". There is no other definition in GUM Law for international treaties. Resolutions must, however, satisfy the conditions established by 1.II.7.(2), “laws must be interpreted such that they do not conflict” – with particular attention drawn to 1.I.3.(1), “GUM member states are independent sovereign states, and micronations in general should be considered sovereign states provided that they meet the qualifications set by the Montevideo Convention of 1933 as interpreted by the organisation. Their sovereignty is involable. The GUM must not… (c) restrict a state’s ability to control its domestic or foreign affairs”. Assuming a resolution meet the above conditions, it could be reasonably passed by Quorum though whether the resolution does not violate 1.I.3.(1) can be settled in the Supreme Court as established by the order of hierarchical superiority established in 1.II.7.(1) which places the Supreme Court’s decision making above Quorum Motions.
Resolutions passed under normal conditions are subject to the normal rules. As stated by the Charter, in 5.1.(1), Quorum is the organisation's legislative branch, supreme body which represents all members which are party to the Charter. As stated in (2) of the same Article, all decisions made by Quroum are decided by "a majority of those who vote". It is most reasonable to conclude that any resolution ratified by Quorum Motion by this means automatically becomes law, and all members are subjected to the articles in that treaty, including International Agreements as specified in (4) of the same Article. Therefore, in all regular sessions, any resolution passed by Quorum by the normal means are legally binding. Resolutions passed under conditions that may appear during the 24 Hour Quorum are as follows. If the 24 Hour Quorum is limited to normal members, and assuming the following requirements in 5.2 of the Charter, drawing particular attention to lines 5.2.(1), 5.2.(4), and 5.2.(8), are met, then resolutions may be passed under normal conditions subject to the normal rules as advised above: therefore they would be legally binding to the organisation and all members. It is important to note here that no motion can be passed during Quorum without the 24 hour time voting period established by 6.1.(1) of the GUM Statutes, and this extends to international treaties and agreements.
However, assuming the 24 Hour Quorum is an event separate from a normal Quorum, but is taking place within the Quorum Chamber, then it is not possible to pass any motions, let alone resolutions, during this event. Only if the conditions which enable a legal Quorum to take place are met can resolutions be passed. It may be that the Chair declares a Quorum and operates the 24 Hour Quorum within this Quorum, as long as the conditions established in Chapter 5.2 are met. In short, any resolution passed by Quorum under the normal rules would be legally binding to all members of the GUM and is required to be made part of the organisations statutory law.
I will quickly address the precedent set by the signing of the Edgbaston Convention. This precedent was set by the signing of the Edgbaston Convention, a resolution of international law, by the Chair on behalf of the organisation by that the members of the organisation itself were not party to. As this precedent was set under an older Charter under an article of promotion that no longer exists in the current Charter, this precedent is effectively obsolete.
However, I will advise that there may be two caveats in how Quorum may endorse Resolutions without being party to them. These caveats rely on the specific wording of either the resolution, or the motion which may endorse a resolution.
Firstly, it may be explicitly stated within the resolution that the conditions of its articles are not legally binding; thus the organisation would effectively be endorsing the resolution without adopting it. In this case, the resolution would not meet the criteria established by 5.1.(4) because it would not be international agreement, but simply a motion. There is nothing stopping Quorum from wording a bill this way. The same applies to making a motion endorsing the principles of a resolution without altering the resolution’s body. An endorsement of the principles of an international treaty is, within the bounds of the Charter, not the same as a ratification of the treaty.
However, if Quorum were to take either of these approaches, it would have no legal rights to enforce any articles established by the resolution itself as it would not be party to it. The Chair would have no right to sign onto the treaty on behalf of the organisation. The resolution itself would not enter into the organisation’s statutory code. Whether this approach meets the needs and requirements of Quorum is outside the bounds of this advisory opinion.
In summary, I have concluded that:
- Resolutions are international treaties.
- Resolutions cannot discriminate against a member state's rights to sovereignty.
- Any resolutions passed under normal Quorum conditions are legally binding to all members.
- No Quorum motions can be passed outside of normal Quorum conditions.
- Quorum may endorse a resolution without ratifying it through a Quorum Motion, but it cannot enforce any of the provisions established by the resolution as the resolution does not become statutory.