Information / Varia #2225
Updated by Apophis almost 13 years ago
Court of Arbitration ruling n°2011-1-A, December the 25th
The Pirate Party International Court of Arbitration has been asked to
decide of the validity of various points of its n°2011-1 ruling by the
Pirate Party of Switzerland.
The Court of Arbitration has stated that the complainant was right to
point out the lack of public rules of procedures, and agreed that it had
to publish its rules of procedures.
The Court did not find sufficient material to nullify, either in its
entirety or partially, the n°2011-1 ruling ; but added precisions on the
extent of the considering 27 about public voting by citizens.
**** Court of Arbitration ruling n°2011-1-A, December the 25th ****
-> PP Switzerland "PP Switzerland challenges the Court of Arbitration
ruling n°2011-1" statement of December 13th.
THE PIRATE PARTY INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION,
Given the PPI Statutes,
Given the December 9th ruling n°2011-1 by the PPI Court of Arbitration,
Given the December 13th "PP Switzerland challenges the Court of
Arbitration ruling n°2011-1" statement by the PP Switzerland,
- ABOUT THE COURT OF ARBITRATION ACTING ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE
1) Considering in the December 9th statement n°2011-1 by the PPI Court
of Arbitration, the Court of Arbitration has taken an own initiative at
considerings 6 and 12.
2) Considering in the December 13th statement, the PP Switzerland
challenges the considering 6 as contrary to a due process, states that a
court cannot rule on its own initiative, demands a clear ruling on
"nullo actore, nullus iudex", and requests the PPI Court of Arbitration
statement n°2011-1 to be nullified in its entirety as a result.
3) Considering that, according to paragraph XIVa. (3) b) of the PPI
Statutes, the PPI Court of Arbitration has "the exclusive power to
declare matters of fact when necessary for the functioning of the PPI".
4) Considering that paragraph XIVa. (2) of the PPI Statutes gives the
power to send complaints to the Court of Arbitration to "the organs and
officers of the PPI", that the Court of Arbitration is an organ of the
PPI, and that its members are officers of the PPI.
5) Considering that therefore the Court of Arbistration has the power to
study a case on its own initiative, provided the functioning of the PPI
or the PPI by itself are suspected of a violation of the PPI Statutes of
the Pirate Party movement core values, or would be victims of such a
suspected behaviour.
7) Considering that, as a result, the Court of Arbitration had the power
to open the procedure of ruling n°2011-1 on its own initiative.
- ABOUT THE LACK OF PUBLISHED PROCEDURES FOR THE COURT OF ARBITRATION
8) Considering the PP Switzerland, in the December 13th statement,
points out the lack of complaint and defendant procedures, and the need
of transparency on internal proceedings.
9) Considering the Court of Arbitration has not published such
procedures, and that it can cause a prejudice to human rights and
fundamental freedoms like the right to a fair trial and transparency of
public institutions.
10) Considering that the PPI General Assembly has not defined such
procedures, and that the lack of clear rules until the next PPI General
Assembly meeting justifies that the Court of Arbitration defines herself
its own procedures, publishes and applies them before they can be
submitted to the vote of the PPI Members.
11) Considering that the own intended actions of the Court of
Arbitration until now have been taken in reaction to internal or
external complaints, and that no official complaint has suffered from
the lack of clear procedures.
12) Considering that the December 9th statement n°2011-1 by the PPI
Court of Arbitration, despite not having been discussed following strict
procedures as no procedures were defined, has been approved by a
majority of the Court of Arbitration members who signed it publicly ;
and therefore provides sufficient transparency.
13) Considering that this same statement is not a ruling in an internal
dispute, and that therefore the Court of Arbitration had no obligation
to consult each and every PPI Member before ruling.
14) Considering that it results from the beginning that the Court of
Arbitration shall define and publish clear complaint, defendant, and
internal procedures.
15) Considering that the lack of publication of such procedures did not
cause a prejudice to the previous statements, and that therefore it does
not make them invalid.
- ABOUT THE COURT OF ARBITRATION PRONOUNCING BOARD SEATS VACANCY
16) Considering the Pirate Party of Switzerland challenges considerings
7 and 9 of the n°2011-1 ruling stating that "the Court of Arbitration
shall pronounce a PPI board seat vacancy if it can cause dispute,
complaints, or Statutes breach".
17) Considering the paragraph XIVa. (3) c) gives to the Court of
Arbitration the exclusive power to "decide the disputes between the
officers and the organs of the PPI".
18) Considering that Finlay Archibald was a PPI officer since his
election to the PPI board.
19) Considering that long term lack of response from a PPI board member
to contact attempts by the rest of the PPI board does not prevent from
contestation after a vacant seat statement, and can therefore be
qualified as a dispute between a PPI officer and a PPI organ ; contrary
to cases like resignation from the board, where it is manifest that the
resigning board member has no dispute with the board on the vacancy of
his seat.
20) Considering that the right to a fair trial implies that, despite his
absence, a board member whose seat is to be declared vacant shall not be
presumed to agree with this vacancy.
21) Considering that therefore, any board seat vacancy statement for
long term absency shall be considered as potentially questionable, and
therefore shall be decided only by the Court of Arbitration, after
making sure reasonable chances to contest this statement are given to
the concerned board member.
- ABOUT THE COURT OF ARBITRATION REJECTING SECRET BALLOTS ELECTRONIC
VOTING SYSTEMS
22) Considering the Pirate Party of Switzerland challenges considerings
22 and 23 of the n°2011-1 ruling of the Court of Arbitration, stating
that the use of electronic voting systems "implies to sacrifice either a
part of secrecy or a part of integrity" and that giving up voting
integrity "would therefore be in contradiction with the pirate movement
core values".
23) Considering the Pirate Party of Switzerland contests the
considerings 22 and 23 validity on the point that it does not take into
account the possible existence of electronic voting systems wich respect
both secrecy and integrity and on the point that no opposing party was
heard.
23) Considering that both attacked considerings 22 and 23 refer to
considering 21 stating that "no procedure of electronic voting that
guarantee, at the same time, anonymity and secrecy of the vote, and
integrity and equality, has been proposed to the PPI".
24) Considering that therefore both considerings would not apply to the
use of an electronic voting system that would respect both integrity and
secrecy, and that therefore the claim of invalidity of the Pirate Party
of Switzerland is not justified.
25) Considering that the Pirate Party of Switzerland use of its
electronic voting system was not judged by the Court of Arbitration in
ruling n°2011-1, and that therefore the Court of Arbitration had no
obligation to hear their arguments in particular.
26) Considering that it results from the above that the considerings 22
and 23 of the ruling n°2011-1 of the Court or Arbitration are valid, and
does not prevent the use of a secret ballots electronic voting system as
soon as such system that also guarantees integrity of the votes would be
presented to the PPI.
27) Considering that the Pirate Party of Switzerland has presented
documentation about its electronic voting system to the PPI board and
Court of Arbitration.
28) Considering that page 8 of the document linked under the title "An
Internet Voting System Supporting User Privacy" about the ADDER system
says at page 8 : "Currently, our system does not offer to a voter a
method for physically verifying that his published encrypted ballot
encrypts his actual choice. Instead, the voter relies on the correctness
of the client software for this task. We note that dealing with this is
a complex problem, since any method for voter-based verifiability can
also potentially used by the voter to prove how he voted and thus allow
for vote buying".
29) Considering that any large scale use of an electronic voting system
with such potential breach in vote integrity would be subject to fraud
attempts, and that therefore and apart from any other consideration it
does not fulfil the required criterium of integrity for a large scale
use such as a PPI board partial election.
30) Considering that therefore, no electronic voting system that
respects both integrity and secrecy of the vote has yet been presented
to the PPI.
- ABOUT THE COURT OF ARBITRATITON STATING PUBLIC VOTING OF CITIZENS
CONTRARY TO PIRATE MOVEMENT CORE VALUES
31) Considering that the Pirate Party of Switzerland challenges the part
of considering 29 of the n°2011-1 ruling of the Court of Arbitration
that says that "the publication of the vote of citizens" in "a partial
board election" would "breach the pirate movement core values".
32) Considering the Pirate Party of Switzerland bases his challenge on
the fact that public voting is a clear fundation of democracy, not
uncommon for parliaments, and that it is not in their interest as there
are public voting elections in both Pirate Party of Switzerland and some
communes and cantons in Switzerland.
33) Considering the considering 29 of the n°2011-1 ruling of the Court
of Arbitration was restricted to elections.
34) Considering that parliament members are in similar situation than
public organizations at considering 27 of the n°2011-1 ruling of the
Court of Arbitration.
35) Considering that the interest of a PPI member cannot prevent the
Court of Arbtration to rule against any measure contrary to the Pirate
Party movement core values.
36) Considering that a public voting system could be used, provided
guarantees are made that the voters cannot be threatened or mistreated
by the candidates whatever their eventual results in the polls.
37) Considering that in general, it is reasonable to consider any
publication of citizen votes could generate such problems.
38) Considering that exceptions to this rule would be tolerable in the
case of small elections, for seats with little influence, where it would
be reasonable to consider nobody would threaten or mistreat any
candidate or voter in order to influence the result, and that every
voter would eventually agree to make it public with no constraint
whatshowever.
39) Considering that this is not the case for any large scale election
like for the PPI board seats, provided citizens would be voting.
40) Considering that the Court of Arbitration has not to judge whether
the Switzerland communal and contonal elections, or the Pirate Party of
Switzerland board public elections, would meet this requirement.
41) Considering that therefore, the considering 27 of the n°2011-1
ruling of the Court of Arbitration does not prevent in itself neither
Switzerland nor Pirate Party of Switzerland to organise public elections.
S T A T E S
Article 1) The Court of Arbitration must decide before 2011 December
31th on its rules of procedures.
Article 2) With the reserves expressed at considering 38, the n°2011-1
ruling of the Court of Arbitration is valid.
Article 3) The current decision, and the rules of procedures evoked at
article 1, will be published on the PPI website.
Deliberate by the Pirate Party International Court of Arbitration on
December 9th of 2011, attended by the followings :
Marco Confalonieri, Arturo Martinez, Maxime Rouquet and Sven Clement
*
* English
* Spanish
* Estonian
* German
* English
* Spanish
* Estonian
* German
<javascript:void(0);>
_______________________________________________
pp-leaders mailing list
pp-leaders@lists.pp-international.net
http://lists.pp-international.net/listinfo/pp-leaders