Auroran Court of Justice

The Auroran Court of Justice or ACJ comprises the judicial branch of the United Nations of the Auroran Continent and the final court of appeal on matters of Auroran law. Auroran law refers the body of law concerning and arising from the collective interests of UNAC member states and it arises from treaties, legislation, executive decrees, judicial precedents and international customary law. It consists of judges appointed by member states of the UNAC who serve for life and wield immunity in the exercise of their duties to shield them from political influence. The court is created as an impartial and independent arbiter of disputes between member states, Protector of fundamental rights and justice and the arbiter on the letter and spirit of Auroran law. Its decisions are binding on all member states and its jurisdiction is bound by treaty or statute and extends only to those areas granted to it by the latter and former.

Powers and duties

The Auroran Court of Justice has various powers related to different elements of the judicial process as follows:

Final court of appeal

It is the last court which can hear appeals on cases arising from Auroran law. It means that a case heard by the ACJ cannot be retried by or appealed to any other court.

Judicial precedent

Any decision made by the ACJ in a case on the interpretation of how a law applies to a set of facts is binding on all courts. This means that all courts, even the highest courts of member states are required to follow the decision that the Auroran Court of Justice made and that decision can only be overturned when new laws are passed, treaties are ratified or a new bench of the ACJ itself overturns the old precedent. The decisions of the ACJ in turn form part of Auroran law.

Legislative review

The ACJ has the power to overturn any law which is passed by the Legislative branch of the UNAC if it does not conform to the treaties and Charter of the UNAC. Because treaties override all legislative instruments, the ACJ cannot overturn treaties. In theory, it has the power to overturn laws passed by member states which do not conform to the Charter of the UNAC. This is unlikely as it is unlikely that any legislation passed by a member state will lie within the scope of powers of the ACJ at all.

Dispute resolution

Where a dispute arises between member states of the UNAC, the parties can bring the dispute to the ACJ. The decision of the ACJ is binding on member states which subject themselves to this process. This process is voluntary but only to the point that the dispute in question does not arise from the violation of treaties and statutes of the UNAC.

Treaty enforcement

Where a member state has violated a treaty or statute of the UNAC, the Prosecutor-General of the UNAC can bring a case against that member state to the ACJ. The decision of the ACJ is binding on the violating country should it be found guilty of treaty violations. Decisions of the ACJ in this regard are enforceable to the point of obliging the UNAC to take military action or economic sanctions against the violating state.

Human rights protection

The ACJ has the power to issue warrants for the arrest of individuals charged with the crimes against sapient beings and sapient rights violations. It also has the power to act as a court of first instance in the case of war crimes, crimes against sapient beings and other related offences, meaning that if domestic courts fail to enforce justice, the ACJ is empowered to try offenders itself with the right to enforce punishment up to life imprisonment.

Political accountability

The ACJ has the power to hold political leaders of the UNAC accountable for violations of Auroran law. This means it can impeach and order the removal from office of UNAC office-holders who violate Auroran law. In most instances the Prosecutor-General must bring such cases to the ACJ. It may try political leaders for violations of laws which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the UNAC but if the law has shared responsibility then the ACJ may ask the courts of member states to tackle the issue instead.