Humanitarian Alliance Justice and Regulation

As the HA operates as a federal entity, it must operate as a legal entity with a hierarchy.

In order of supremacy the hierarchy is:
1. The Chamber
2. The Constitution
3. Chamber (Federal) Statute
4. The Supreme Court
5. Chamber Delegated (Federal) Authority
6. Local Statute (Local hierarchy inserts here, e.g. USA federal law)
7. Written Contract
8. Oral Contract
9. Implicit Contract

The Chamber

The elected Chamber has the right to change the law including the Constitution, but is still subject to the law, except where such laws would infringe on the democratic process. The most famed example of this 'Chamber Privilege' is in regards to official secrets. If a Chamber member feels they need to, they may freely discuss official secrets within the Chamber. The duty to protect any secrets remains the responsibility of Intelligence and their role is unchanged. Generally if a secret is discussed, Intelligence will inform the press which parts of the discussion are a secret and remind the press that it still can't be reported. For example, if a bombing of an Astry ship became a secret for Intelligence reasons, then the press may be informed by Intelligence that the news is a secret and if it is published then they will be charged with breaking the law.

The press does however have some reporting protection in order to freely report on democratic procedures, as guarded by Hana. To continue the example, if then, a Chamber member called Bob says in the Chamber, that an Astry ship has been attacked, then the press is allowed to report on the Chamber but only exactly on the Chamber, including naming who they are quoting. The press therefore can report that 'Chamber Member Bob said "An Astry ship has been attacked"', but they may not report anything else, such as 'Astry Ship Bombed!".

To clarify the extent of 'Chamber Privilege' we can continue the example. If Chamber member Bob were then to kill somebody in the Chamber, then Bob would be immediately arrested on a charge of murder. The interesting part is that voters have voted for Bob, so regardless of crime, it is important to note that Bob keeps ous elected position and must be afforded the right to vote in the Chamber. This principle is kept as a law may actually be bad, causing the elected to become criminals, but the elected chamber should have the right to change the law. If a law was racist, making a chamber member a criminal, then that victim of that racist law would still be allowed to vote a change in the law. This principle is extended to prisoners who are also allowed to vote. In this example however, what would actually happen to Bob is that all Bob's Pins would remove their proxy allocation. Bob would lose so many votes that ou would no longer be in the top 300 and cease to be a Chamber Member.

The Constitution

The Chamber has the right to change the Constitution as the Constitution is below the Chamber. It was designed this way to avoid a constitutional crisis should any changes need to be made. Also the HA wouldn't be a democracy as the Constitution would in effect be a silent dictator set by people in the past. You should note however that since the HA's founding, the Constitution has never been changed. This is partly as people are continually told how good it is, so any move to change the Constitution has the effect of making the politician look like they are doing something bad. In truth, the Constitution is actually designed to be vague enough to actually allow Statue laws and Judges to adapt the interpretation of it.

Chamber (Federal) Statute

There are not many Federal laws as the HA was founded to allow local legislation of 'matter of opinion' laws. For example, some nations choose to regard some drug taking as illegal while other see it as a constitutional right. Incidentally the Supreme Court decided that the control and use of addictive drugs was a ‘matter of opinion’ law and allowed the local laws to hold authority providing the HA citizens are allowed free movement to a differing jurisdiction (which they are). The most notable federal law is the Settlement Act 2109. There is also a movement to federalise the local law so the same rule on something can be applied everywhere. The supporters argue that a single legal statue is required under the Constitutional right to 'live under the rule of law' and not some local diktat, and to live in a free economy without legal barriers to entry. The opposers maintain that local laws allow for the Constitutional right to be free to follow imperatives that do not harm others, where a majority hold a matter of opinion of a different taste. In reality, realpolitik actually holds sway where the local nations on Earth don't want to change their own legal framework.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is called the Supreme Court as it is higher than the High Court. It is made up of a near random selection of nine judges who have qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Each judge has the right to 'pass' once a year to allow for personal time, such as a daughter’s wedding. Judges are not allowed to pass more than once and are not selected twice in a row in order to minimise any impact of coercion. There never has been a coerced judge but the system is setup to deal with it should it happen. Additionally a judge can be allowed to pass if a majority of the other judges vote to allow it. In reality, the statistics show that the Supreme Court only holds court about once every 18 months.

The general purpose of the Supreme Court is to provide interpretation on:
• The application of the Chambers motions;
• The Constitution in regards to case law, (even without a case in order to prevent a case being brought, which would waste time)
• The direction of delegated authority.

Typical interpretations published would be on what a new product does, in regards to such questions as 'does it invade privacy?'. It can also apply interpretation to declare something legal and so can provide authority to Intelligence to investigate anything, such as a Chamber member. It can also recognise a HAM personnel's statement that 'war is upon us' as an official HA 'declaration of war'; however it is customary for the declaration of war to come from the Chamber. The Supreme Court would only declare war if somehow the Chamber was disrupted. Note that the Supreme Court is technically not a place, despite having an official residence; it is technically the body of nine judges. Should the HA capital city of Sao Gabriel da Cachoeira in Brazil be destroyed then there will be no constitutional crisis as the judges can still apply law from anywhere.

Chamber Delegated (Federal) Authority

Delegated Authority refers to federal entities that have the authority to act unilaterally over and above any law. The two greatest delegated authorities are HATTER, responsible for implementing economic policy and HAM (including HAA), where any military personell can declare 'war is upon us' and act to defend the HA. Note that they are below the Supreme Court who has the judicial power to review any decision made by a delegated authority, such as declaring war, but generally lets them do their job. As Intelligence is a delegated authority it therefore can override any local law guarding privacy. It should be noted that Swinterland is not within the HA, so Intelligence has no jurisdiction and therefore no authority to inquire into the goings on of the tiny nation of Swinterland.

Local Statue

Although seen as a single level from the HA perspective, every nation to date has a layered system within the local statue. To add extra confusion, the HA federal system is based on the USA federal system which lies within it. USA federal law is therefore referred to as local law within the HA system.

New nations at creation often don't have a local set of laws, so when the Supreme Court applies the Settlement Act and creates a new nation, it will also declare a proxy to be used as a local legal framework. Typically it will choose the majority prior-nation of its founders, for example, with the planet Mount Diju it was Kurdistani. If there is no majority, the Supreme Court will apply UK law, as the UK is willing to provide legal aid to new nations and is seen to have one of the fairest local legal systems in existence. The judicially assigned proxy is only temporary until the local population can elect a permanent proxy (which might be the same one) or if any local acts are passed in its place. Proxies are seen as lower than a local act and they do include updates, so if the UK adds an Act, the Supreme Court views it as enacted in the nations that recognise the UK as a legal proxy.

Contract Law

Contract law is the lowest form of written law. It cannot affect anyone's statutory rights and contract writers are keen to point that out as it creates clarity in the mind of the signatory (in theory). In truth this is pointed out as a cover as they can't then be said to be misleading if they are prompting people to check their statutory rights. There are many rules to contracts, each designed to allow for fairness.

The most noted ones are:
• Ex Gratia (Latin for ‘by favour). What is given for free cannot be sued for. If I give you a new car and it breaks down, you can't sue me, demanding I fix it for you or pay for a new car.
• Illegal contracts are not contracts. If you agree with me to give me a lot of illegal drugs in exchange for money, then if I then pass the contraband to the police, you cannot sue me for money owed. The contract would be invalid. Note that as statutory law is a higher authority, if I sign a contract with you to be your slave, the anti-slavery act takes precedence and therefore I am not your slave.
• The Red Line Rule. If a term is deemed unfair and can be crossed out with a red line, without affecting the rest of the contract, a judge may do so. If term (a) says 'pay fair rent for a good property, and term (b) says keep the property clean to the satisfaction of the landlord or pay a F100m fine, and the landlord says the property is dirty but you disagree and refuse to pay the fine, the judge may put a red line through clause (b). The rental agreement will therefore remain valid but without the fine.
• Onus. The onus is the burden placed on a party where all things are the same but an outcome is required. With the aim of fairness, the onus is usually placed on the accuser in criminal law and stronger party in civil law. If I am poisoned with uranium, and I accuse my employer of being a criminal, of poisoning me (with intent), and they say they didn't, the onus is on me to prove it. It is my responsibility to provide evidence of the poisoning. The police also have to provide evidence in their actions or any case would be lost and costs will have to be paid to the accused. If however I refuse to work for my employer as I believe the asteroid I'm working on is irradiating uranium by-products; then the onus is on the 'stronger' employer to prove the asteroid is safe to work on before firing me.
• Dead Terms. Landlords often like to put terms in the rental contract for actions to apply once contract is at an end, such as post contract reviewing e.g. 'no bad reviews after the end of the rental'. They may also try to sound more reasonable by adding 'for a year' to the term. However, the term is within the contract that exists as long as the property is being rented. When the contract expires it is dead. That is to say it is completely dead. If there is no contract between you and your previous landlord then there can't be any terms applying. Any term that applies after it is dead is nonsense, it is a dead term and can be ignored.
• Frustration. Where someone fails to deliver on a contact through no fault of their own, they are 'frustrated'. For example, a judge would normally allow a late supplier to have more time to deliver the late goods, a state which both sides must honour or otherwise agree to tear up the contract. On a 'tear up' all money paid and assets transfered must be returned as if the contract had never existed. If in that example it becomes obvious that delivery is impossible, then the judge may simply tear up/nullify the contract without either party liking it. Note that in a 'tear up' most judges will apply the time the court is being held and therefore most penalty clauses that were triggered must be paid. Only ongoing penalty clauses are torn-up. The judge may in fact apply any aspect of a contract so they could simply nullify it in its entirety, rendering it all penalties void, or apply only parts found to be fair.

Oral Contracts

All agreements that regard transfer of assets, typically money for work are contracts. If you work for someone and they don't pay you, claiming that you never had a contract, they are wrong. A contract has been given orally. Oral contracts have the same strength as written contacts except with one difference. If an oral agreement is disputed and is counter to a written contract, the onus is on the party who refutes the written contract to prove the oral agreement happened. Oral terms can be added to written contracts but with this differing onus they can be hard to prove.

Implicit Contracts

Quite rare but if a boss hires ten people to clear a yard and following confusion eleven people turn up and work for a day, then a judge would rule that the boss should have been aware of the eleventh person and in failing to clarify, they have implicitly hired the eleventh person. Consequentially they will have to pay the eleventh person. The employer is technically not out of pocket as the same work is done, as clearing a yard is clearing a yard. 1 person would take 88 hours, 10 people would take 8 hours 48 minutes or 11 people would take 8 hours.

Civil and Criminal Law

Most legal systems are split between criminal law and civil law.
• Criminal Law: (person vs state) where behaviour deemed criminal has been enacted, such as murder. Verdicts for criminal cases generally require a 2/3 or complete majority, depending on jurisdiction.
• Civil Law: (person vs person) where the actions of one person are viewed as damaging to another, usually measured in money. Note that these stop at the immediate level. If a supplier fails to supply goods when they said they would and are 2 hours late, then you can sue them for the 2 hours you must pay your idle workforce who were waiting (note that most supply contracts have a clause to circumvent this). Note that any judge will look for remedial action. If you had another delivery you could have put your workforce to work on instead, the the jugde would find you unreasonable in not doing so. You would not win any payment on such a suit. If there was no remedial action available to you, you may sue them for the money lost to idle wages, but not for money not earned by missing the holiday sales. The missed holiday sales are not on the immediate level. Civil cases generally only require a majority verdict, placing it lower than criminal verdict.

The HA has chosen to not distinguish between the civil and criminal where there is a criminal charge, believing there is a civil aspect to all criminal activities, which must be dealt with all at once. To be clear though, this doesn’t mean there is always a criminal component to a civil case. It is perfectly normal to have an entirely civil case.