Inter-Governmental Organization "IGO"

Sovereign Court of International Justice

 

Official flag of Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) Inter-Governmental Organization (IGO) in diplomatic relations

The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) is the “High Court” for human rights and international law cases, operated by the independent Judiciary Profession.  It is established as an autonomous Official Body of the inter-governmental organization (IGO) Ignita Veritas United (IVU), which serves as the host institution providing supporting infrastructure.

 

Chartered as an “Official Body” of an IGO, the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) thereby holds independent diplomatic status as an autonomous IGO in its own right.  International law confirms that official bodies as agencies of a host IGO constitute “other subjects of international law” as separate “parties” to “international agreements”, as provided by the Charter of the host IGO institution (1969 Convention on Law of Treaties, Articles 3, 3(c), 5).

 

The general operations of the Court by the independent Judiciary upholding international law are supported by the Royal Institute of Law and Justice (Law Faculty) of Ignita Veritas University.

 

All net proceeds from the Government Court Division of the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) and its Arbitration Court (ACIJ) are used to fund the non-profit operations of the Human Rights Court Division, through the Public Access to Justice Endowment (PAJE) Fund.

 

Name of the Court for Translations

 

The key word “Sovereign”, historically used to mean the highest powers and authorities of a royal kingdom, can be difficult to translate in some languages.  Its meaning is a combination of its synonyms, “supreme” and “independent”, with the added meaning that it holds “diplomatic status”.

 

Judiciary supremacy with real independence and inherent diplomatic status is only possible for a properly formed  Court which is an inter-governmental organization (IGO), which in international law thereby holds supra-governmental authorities of “universal jurisdiction”, at a higher level of law above individual countries.

 

Therefore, the best translation of the name of the Court is “Supreme Court of International Justice”.  The Court is named “Sovereign” to emphasize the supra-governmental supremacy of the independent Judiciary Profession, protected by law against interference or undue influence from any governments, with inter-governmental diplomatic status supporting its enforcement powers as a Court of Law for international Justice.

 

Official Authority as a Court of Law

 

The Sovereign Court (SCIJ) was strategically founded to inherently possess codified legal powers and authorities of international law, thereby having official status to assert binding universal jurisdiction, to adjudicate and enforce matters involving governments and officials of all countries.  (Details in Judiciary Authorities and Judiciary Enforcement sections.)

 

Access to Justice – The Sovereign Court (SCIJ) fulfills a mandate of conventional law for providing access to Justice, specifically:  The basic human right to “fair and equal access to justice” (2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 2(b), 3(c), 11(a), 12), through an “independent” and “international” Court (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28), as an “intergovernmental organization” at the supra-governmental “international level” (1998 Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 5), providing “access to justice” through “accessible formal procedures” of “customary justice” (1985 Declaration of Justice for Abuse of Power, Articles 4, 5, 7).

 

Universal Jurisdiction – The Sovereign Court (SCIJ) is an official Court of Law, with “universal jurisdiction” of all matters involving international law, and “independent” exercise of that higher jurisdiction (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28; 2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 3(c), 5, 12, 14; 1998 Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2; 1985 Declaration of Justice for Abuse of Power, Articles 5, 7; 2007 Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 17.1, 37, 40; 1985 Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, Preamble: ¶1, ¶10, Articles 3, 4, 9, 14)

 

These official powers and authorities of supra-governmental universal jurisdiction are “binding upon” all countries as a “recognized customary rule of international law” (1969 Convention on Law of Treaties, Article 38).

 

Unique Judiciary Culture as a Next-Generation Court

 

The Sovereign Court (SCIJ) is a traditional yet next-generation Court of Law, operated by the independent Judiciary Profession.  This gives it a unique and distinctive character, embodying positive humanitarian values, and providing innovative practical solutions to modern challenges.  It thus has a unique capability to restore real Justice for The People, and thus return the Rule of Law as one of the most essential pillars of civilization.

 

As a modern trend, State Courts increasingly operated by politically appointed Judges and driven by political agendas, often issue cursory judgments which do not explain their reasoning, or fail to address what the law actually says.  This degenerative practice conceals many errors of fact, law and logic from scrutiny, making rulings appear subjective and superficial.  The Sovereign Court (SCIJ) restores and firmly applies the time-tested solution to this compelling need:

 

The most essential role and fundamental obligation of a Court of Law, without which it cannot be properly called a Court of Law, is the strict scholarly discipline of applying the law to the facts as established by the evidence, and issuing a written judicial opinion transparently documenting those bases for each and every judgment.  This doctrine is enshrined in the SCIJ Rules of Court, making it a traditional Court of classical jurisprudence, thereby upholding the integrity of the independent Judiciary, and restoring public confidence in the principles of true Justice.

 

All judgments issued by the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) are based upon the logical, objective, methodical and direct application of relevant rules of law to the verifiable facts of each case as established by the evidence.  In all cases, the Court issues a proper and traditional judgment, consisting of a written judicial opinion, declaring the conclusions of fact-finding, with reference to the determinative evidence, citing sources for all rules of law, and explaining the basis and reasoning for the end result of the judgment. This makes all judgments self-contained as “self-proving”, proving what the law is, and proving that its results are correct under law.

 

Human Rights Court Division

Individual & Private Claims

 

The Sovereign Court (SCIJ), by its official status with inherent legal authority of supra-governmental universal jurisdiction, is empowered to effectively enforce claims by private individuals and organizations against country governments, agencies and officials, and issue judgments which are binding and enforceable against all parties found to be guilty of human rights violations.

 

The specialized areas of expertise needed for effectively handling human rights matters and related enforcement are supported by the Royal Institute of Geopolitics and Diplomacy (Diplomatic Academy) of Ignita Veritas University.

 

Rights for Historical States – The historical and indigenous Nation-States of the world, although holding sovereignty under international law, have been excluded from the modern international forums, and thus deprived of access to Justice to protect the human rights of their peoples.  The universal jurisdiction of the SCIJ is well suited to upholding human rights for small developing Nation-States which are “sovereign subjects of international law”, but do not have access to any of the modern treaty-based Courts.

 

Developing Court Operations – SCIJ can only process human rights cases within the non-profit budgets available through grass-roots fundraising and private donations from the general public.  While a strong level of operations is already provided for, SCIJ is currently not yet ready to open its claims process to the public.  Presently, SCIJ may select representative claims of serious cases on key points of international law, based upon recommendation and referral from human rights organizations.

 

IVU continues developing the infrastructure and expanding the capabilities of the Sovereign Court (SCIJ), as a priority non-profit humanitarian project. SCIJ hopes to open the Human Rights division of the Court to process claims from the general public as soon as possible, subject only to a sufficient endowment level of non-profit funding.

 

All countries, organizations and citizens, who value the Rule of Law and human rights, are encouraged to make fully tax deductible non-profit donations to this extremely important humanitarian project of global significance.

 

Government Court Division

Official Court for Nation States

 

The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ), inherently possessing codified conventional law authority of supra-governmental universal jurisdiction, can adjudicate cases involving all governments, agencies and officials of territorial countries, and also non-territorial States which are otherwise denied access to the modern treaty-based Courts.  This capability is provided through the Government Court Division.

 

Court of Record for States – Through its Government Court Division, the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) can also serve as an authorized official “Court of Record” for historical or indigenous Nation-States, by appointment from any such State which chooses to delegate its relevant Judiciary functions to the Court as its government contractor.

 

The Government Court Division is well suited to meeting the needs of small developing Nation-States, including sovereign indigenous Tribes, Royal Houses or Orders of Chivalry, or other entities which are sovereign subjects of international law possessing statehood, which do not wish to establish their own Judiciary and Court system.

 

Supports Historical States – Historical and indigenous Nation-States which traditionally possess sovereignty of statehood retain such status by “customary international law” (1961 Diplomatic Relations, Preamble: ¶5, Article 47.1; 1963 Consular Relations, Preamble: ¶6; 1969 Special Missions, Preamble: ¶8; 2004 Immunities of States, Preamble: ¶5; 1969 Law of Treaties, Preamble: ¶8, Article 38; 2005 Right to Remedy for Human Rights, Article 1), also enforceable as “other sources of international law” (1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble: ¶3).

 

The status of such Nation-States as a sovereign “subject of international law” is “binding upon” all countries as a “recognized customary rule of international law” (1969 Law of Treaties, Articles 3, 38), and such States inherently possess diplomatic and consular relations (1963 Consular Relations, Articles 1(d), 3, 17.1) including as a non-territorial state (1961 Diplomatic Relations, Articles 1(i), 23.1, 30.1).

 

The specialized areas of expertise needed for effectively handling matters of historical customary law for sovereign historical institutions are supported by the Academy of History & Culture (History Faculty) of Ignita Veritas University.

 

Authority with Independence – In relation to applying the laws of a delegating State as its Court of Record, all findings, orders and judgments issued by the Court carry full weight of sovereign authority as official governmental determinations under international law.

 

As an independent Judiciary institution serving as an external Court of Record, the Government Court Division is solely responsible for the interpretation, application, adjudication and enforcement of the sovereign laws of each appointing State.  It is also empowered to conduct official investigation and prosecution of violations of such sovereign laws.  All petitions, motions, responses and evidence are filed directly and independently with the Court.

 

Indigenous Rights Division

Claims for Indigenous Peoples

 

The fundamental principles of human rights recognized as international law equally protect the needs of indigenous peoples, whose rights were infringed for many centuries by dominating countries.  Unique aspects of these same rights, involving indigenous cultures as an important part of the collective heritage of humanity through cultural diversity in civilization, are further established in the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

 

The effective application of human rights law for indigenous peoples requires more specific knowledge of cultural and national history, particular aspects of certain national laws of territorial host countries, and the participation of lawyers and Judges having professional experience with supporting indigenous rights.

 

The Indigenous Rights Division serves as the dedicated part of the Court which concentrates on the rights of indigenous peoples, as a distinct area of human rights law.  This better empowers individuals, tribes or nations of indigenous peoples to bring claims against host country governments, agencies and officials under international law.

 

The specialized areas of expertise needed for effectively adjudicating historically based claims for indigenous peoples are supported by the Academy of History & Culture (History Faculty) of Ignita Veritas University.

 

Structure of Chambers of the Sovereign Court

 

The primary functions of the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) are provided by its Chambers as autonomous subdivisions.  The Chambers are managed by their respective Chancellors, and may be represented by separate or additional Special Chancellors.  While Chancellors may issue or sign official acts of the Chambers, they generally do not preside over the adjudication of any individual cases.  The Supreme Chancellor is responsible for overseeing and coordinating all Chancellors of the collective Chambers of the Court.

 

Chamber of Instruction Judges

 

The Chamber of Instruction Judges conducts impartial investigation of plaintiff or victim claims to the Court, or of judiciary inquiries upon the initiative of the Court, as an official fact-finding process to establish the determinative facts and evidence in a case.

 

Instruction Judges are special Officers of the Court, empowered with Judiciary authority.  The investigating Instruction Judges can be qualified lawyers, or can be “lay judges” (1985 Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, Preamble: ¶10) who are professional law enforcement or forensic investigators, trained in the legal rules of evidence.

 

Based upon the investigative facts and evidence, the Chamber of Instruction Judges then assigns a Judge-Advocate for each of the current or potential parties to a case, to develop the most relevant legal arguments pertinent to both sides of the case.  The Judge-Advocates must be qualified legal professionals possessing a law degree, who fulfill the necessary functions under the 1990 Principles on the Role of Lawyers for the defense.

 

The result is to provide an effective Judiciary “discovery” process, including the use of Subpoenas, empowering the Court to establish facts and evidence possessed by defendants or third parties, which are not available to a claimant.  This also provides balance and fairness, protecting parties on both sides who may have insufficient legal representation, reducing or eliminating the costs of legal process related to lawyers and law firms.

 

Based upon the findings of the Instruction Judges and Judge-Advocates, the Chamber of Instruction Judges then makes recommendations and refers the case to the Chamber of Prosecutors or Chamber of Presiding Judges.

 

Chamber of Prosecutors

 

The Chamber of Prosecutors is used only for cases which may involve criminal components or touch upon principles of criminal law, generally cases involving violations of human rights or international law.

 

This Chamber also handles the application of criminal laws of sovereign Nation-States which have delegated jurisdiction to SCIJ under its Government Court Division.

 

The Prosecutors must be qualified legal professionals possessing a law degree, with experience in litigation or law enforcement, who fulfill the functions and obligations under the 1990 Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors in presenting and substantiating any criminal charges.

 

Based upon the evidence and recommendations provided by the Chamber of Instruction Judges, the Chamber of Prosecutors explores or develops potential charges in criminal matters, and exercises its own prosecutorial discretion whether or not to bring charges, by referring the case to the Chamber of Presiding Judges.

 

Chamber of Presiding Judges

 

The Chamber of Presiding Judges performs the primary courtroom trial function, for the conduct of hearings, the adjudication of cases, and the enforcement of applicable laws within the international universal jurisdiction of the Court.

 

The Presiding Judges must be qualified legal professionals possessing a law degree, with experience in litigation, courtroom practice, governmental prosecutions, or Judiciary administration.  They exercise all official powers and responsibilities of the Court, under the 1985 Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.

 

Based upon the recommendations from the Chamber of Instruction Judges in all cases, and the referral of charges brought by the Chamber of Prosecutors in criminal cases, the Chamber of Presiding Judges conducts the hearings and trial proceedings.  Any presentations by Prosecutors are counterbalanced by those of a Judge-Advocate for the defense.

 

The Chamber of Presiding Judges strictly applies the law to the facts as established by the evidence.  It then issues a scholarly formal judgment, in the form of a written judicial opinion, presenting all determinative findings of fact and evidence, and explaining the resulting legal reasoning for rulings on legal facts.

 

Chamber of Compliance Judges

 

The Chamber of Compliance Judges is dedicated to enforcement of Court Orders and the collection of Judgment Awards, primarily by active facilitation with government agencies.  Compliance Judges conduct monitoring, tracking and support of implementation measures taken by relevant country authorities, to ensure “compliance” in fulfillment of the binding obligations of States under international law, and to ensure that all authorities who are in a position to enforce Court Orders are fully aware of their mandatory legal obligations to do so.

 

Compliance Judges are special Officers of the Court, empowered with Judiciary authority.  The enforcement Compliance Judges can be qualified lawyers, or can be “lay judges” (1985 Independence of the Judiciary, Preamble: ¶10) with professional experience in law enforcement, security, governmental affairs, lobbying, or civil rights advocacy, trained in the relevant laws and legal mechanisms used for enforcement.

 

Operations of the Chamber of Compliance Judges include routinely serving government officials with Court Orders for enforcement, registering judgments domestically, and filing liens and credit reports in all jurisdictions related to a violating person or entity.

 

Compliance Judges can refer any situations of “non-compliance” to the Chamber of Presiding Judges, to issue corrective or clarifying Court Orders, or to issue any needed Contempt of Court Orders, carrying penalties against any governmental agencies or officials which are not cooperative with the official Judiciary enforcement measures.

 

You cannot copy content of this page

Scroll Up