Please note this is a revised version of Resolution 14.
In line with the following proposition, the International Court of Justice shall be founded.
The International Court of Justice:
Article 1.
i) On the immediate passing of this proposal as a resolution in the Security Council of the General Assembly, the Civil Judicial Body of the World Congress named the 'International Court of Justice' will be established.
ii) The 'International Court of Justice' will serve to rule on international disputes with regards to borders, deportation or human rights issues etc. between nations. It will be a civil judicial body and will not interfere with criminal law.
iii) The court can only hear a dispute when both countries involved have ratified the treaty to recognise the International Court of Justice and say that they will participate in court action, whether they raise a dispute or defend an dispute. The treaty will be named 'Recognition and Participation in the International Court of Justice'. Any nation can give evidence, even if they have not ratified the aforementioned treaty.
iv) The Luthorian (English) Language will be the standard language for the International Court of Justice.
v) The International Court of Justice shall be headquartered in the international territories of Whale Island. A second auxiliary location for the International Court of Justice shall be established in Eroncourt, Lourenne.
Article 2.
i) A total of 9 judges will serve in the International Court of Justice. These judges will be elected in conjunction with Security Council Elections, with Judges from Seats A-E being automatically allowed to be judges. The other 4 positions will go to Judges from nations that have the next most votes after the nation's elected.
ii) International Lawyers are eligible to represent any nation in Court, however, it is recommended that top International Lawyers represent their own nation.
Article 3.
i) The following process will be used to hear cases:
1. A nation that has ratified the Recognition and Participation in the International Court of Justice can propose to the 9 Judges of the ICoJ to have their dispute heard. A simple majority of judges is required in order for the case to be heard.
2. If the judges accept to hear the claimant nations dispute, the opposition nation are informed and a date(s) (OOC: Real life) for the court case to be heard is decided. If the Judges do NOT accept to hear the dispute, they must advise why they did not accept to hear it. At this point, the claimant nation is dismissed.
3. Once court is in session, an official case archive will be created, titled as following: Claimiant Nation vs. Opposition Nation (Issue 'x' eg. Land Border dispute).
4. The following dispute hearing system will be adopted:
The claimant presents their case, calls witnesses, individuals, organisational or national representatives to give a statement. They will cross-examine the statement.
The opposition presents their case, cross examines previous witnesses, calls his own witnesses and cross-examines statements.
This process of cross-examination repeats until completed.
The claimant concludes their case.
The opposition nation concludes their case.
The judges deliberate and vote to 'support' the dispute or 'oppose' the dispute. If at this point a simple majority of judges oppose the dispute, the case is dropped. If there is a majority support of the disute, the case moves to the next stage.
The judges recommend a course of action, and put in place precautions if that course of action is not carried out by the opposer. eg. If the course of action is to restore original border, and the opposition nation refuses, the judges propose potential economic or military sanctions on the opposer.
The case is completed and placed in the archives.
Further Notices:
The 9 judges do not necessarily have to come from nations who have ratified the treaty- however that would be ideal.
With regards to cases involving nations who have raised or are opposing a dispute and have a judge on the court, that judge would be excused from the court and the judge from the nation with the most SC votes would have a double vote.
Judges should always remain impartial and base their verdicts upon the facts of that case- they are held accountable by the electorate- as they are voted in at the time of the SC, and if it comes across that they are acting in the interests of their nations alliance's etc. rather than on the facts of the case- then nations can change their vote and get them out of the court.
The votes are thus:
AYE: Kundrati, Lourenne, Beiteynu
NAY:
ABSTAIN: Tukarali, Nsanlosa
with the result of AYE for this resolution.
(This resolution has been passed.)
Dorvik | 
Zardugal | 
Ostland (FBC)