Duval v. Quebecshire

Duval v. Quebecshire
Court	High Council of Quebecshire
Full case name	Terraconserva Foreign Policy Institute in Quebecshire v. Administration of Quebecshire
Decided	April 7, 2020 (2020-04-07)
Case history
Prior action(s)	Administration non-compliance with TCN Resolution 015.
Subsequent action(s)	Legal non-compliance of TCN Resolution 015 by Quebecshire, new precedent on international law established.
Case opinions
Decision by	Dufour, joined by Bellerose, Vérany, Beaux, Rodier, Celice, Leclère, Chéreau, Noir, Chauve, Aliker, and Ponce.
Dissent	Corriveau, joined by Chuquet, Beauchamp, Bertillon, and Charbonneau

Duval v. Quebecshire was a modern landmark court case in Quebecshire determined by the High Council. The case established further precedent on the authority of international law in Quebecshire.

Prelude

On March 31, 2020 the Terraconserva Council of Nations passed Resolution 015 which established a global Joint Education Committee. The Quebecshirite delegation to the TCN voted against Resolution 015 on the basis that it would likely be unconstitutional.

"We believe the resolution is well-intended and that the government of Paleocacher has the development of many disadvantaged people at heart. However, the Quebecshirite delegation must vote against as this resolution most likely contradicts the Constitution of Quebecshire. Title I Clause VI of the Constitution reads "National sovereignty is absolute and resides in the will of the Quebecshirite population," and Title I Clause VII states No section of the Quebecshirite population or any individual therein may expropriate the popular sovereignty of Quebecshire. If this resolution does pass, it will likely lead to a lawsuit before the High Council which would determine Quebecshire's specific response to it, but as of this time, we must vote in opposition. Quebecshire participates and abides by many internationally directed TCN resolutions for the diplomatic advancement of the world, but this is likely to be a domestic policy infringement in an unconstitutional fashion."

— Quebecshirite Delegation, March 31, 2020

Despite the protests of several delegations, Resolution 015 passed the TCN with a vote count of 7-5-4. Sometime after this passage Philippe Dumont announced that Quebecshire would not enforce the resolution domestically due to possible conflictions with the Constitution of Quebecshire. Shortly after this announcement the Terraconserva Foreign Policy Institute in Quebecshire filed a lawsuit against the Administration of International Affairs before the High Council, asserting that they had to abide by and enforce Resolution 015 and its contents.

Arguments

On April 1, 2020 both the Terraconserva Foreign Policy Institute in Quebecshire (TFPIQ) and Administration of International Affairs presented their arguments to the High Council of Quebecshire.

Terraconserva Foreign Policy Institute Argument

The Terraconserva Foreign Policy Institute in Quebecshire argued that it was the legal mandate and duty for the Administration of International Affairs to ensure Quebecshire abides by TCN Resolution 015.

"The decision of the Administration of International Affairs to refuse to abide by TCN Resolution 015 is not within their jurisdiction to do so. It is the opinion of the Terraconserva Foreign Policy Institute that the resolution itself holds no contradictions to our Serene State's Constitution. The Establishment of the Joint Education Committee is fully constitutional and compatible with the values of Quebecshire.

Of the four binding operative clauses, the second and third are the most simple and inoffensive, simply awarding a seat to the member nations of the Council of Nations and establishing when the committee is to meet. Neither of these poses any contestable nature to the Constitution as they do not have any bearing on the status of popular sovereignty in Quebecshire.

The first operative clause establishes the Joint Education Committee with the intent to “regulate and explore ways of enhancing collaboration in various sectors of education.” While the government would assert that this violates the Constitution, it is compatible with Constitutional legislation. While the Constitution asserts that national sovereignty resides in the will of the people, the same clause (Title I Clause VI) clearly establishes that sovereignty is “maintained by the governing bodies of Quebecshire” - therefore not directly by the populace themselves. The Quebecshirite Delegation to the Council of Nations maintains this by abiding by the international order which they are a member of and thus it is Constitutional for Quebecshire to abide by this resolution despite the protests of another institution within our government.

The final operative clause establishes an international visa system to allow travel between nations for the purpose of “educational enrichment,” this visa system being established under the Council of Nation as the “Education Visas.” It is the opinion of our institute that the same logic as the prior operative clause can be applied and that the government of Quebecshire has the authority and duty to abide by this resolution as part of the maintenance of sovereignty and jurisdictional law.

As a result of this, we would like to request the High Council mandate that the Administration of International Affairs abide by TCN Resolution 015 as it is the legal expectation that international law is valid in our Serene State."

— Stéphane Duval, April 1, 2020

Administration of International Affairs Argument

The Administration of International Affairs of Quebecshire presented the argument that the enforcement of or abiding by TCN Resolution 015 was unconstitutional on the basis of the origin of national and popular sovereignty in Quebecshire and the government's involvements therein.

"The Administration of International Affairs affirms that it made the legally sound decision in refusing to enforce and directly abide by TCN Resolution 015. Our Administrator, Philippe Dumont, is firm in the belief that the resolution comes into conflict with the Constitution of Quebecshire.

The Administration believes that the first operative clause of the resolution contradicts the Constitution of Quebecshire with the mandate being grated to the Joint Education Committee to “regulate” enhancement of collaboration in education. While Title I of the Constitution does clarify that Quebecshire’s government maintains national sovereignty through its policies and directives, the government does not possess the origin of this authority per the Title’s statement of “National sovereignty is absolute and resides in the will of the Quebecshirite population.” It is because of this that we assert that the Administration would be acting outside of its authority to enforce the validity of the resolution, as we do not possess the constitutional ability to do so.

The Administration also believes that the Quebecshirite Delegation to the Council of Nations does not have the authority nor mandate to outsource any sovereign authority to the TCN in its current form, or in the form of a resolution.

Furthermore, the Administration is of the conviction that operative clause four infringes upon the right of the Quebecshirite government to be the sole regulator and provider of documents with which to gain legal status in or entrance to Quebecshire. The flow into Quebecshire and any mitigations thereof is, in our opinion, an issue relating to the overall sovereignty of the Serene State. The ability of any other organization to do this contradicts Title I Clause VII which argues that “No section of the Quebecshirite population or any individual therein may expropriate the popular sovereignty of Quebecshire.” Believing that the drafters of this constitution wrote the aforementioned clause with the bureaucracy of Quebecshire in mind as a “section of the Quebecshirite population,” it would be unlawful to submit to this authority. The Constitution does not allow the Quebecshirite government to pass on maintenance and governing authority in regard to national and popular sovereignty, and therefore such a resolution cannot be consented to by our Administration."

— Administration of International Affairs, April 1, 2020

High Council Opinions

Majority Opinion

The majority opinion was primarily authored by Mathéo Dufour, who sided with the Administration of International Affairs. His opinion was joined by André Bellerose, Maxime Vérany, Léon, Bélise, Jérôme Celice, Emmanuel Leclère, Jean-Louis Chéreau, Noémie Noir, Abélard Chauve, Pascal Aliker, and Florence Ponce.

"The Constitution of Quebecshire is explicit in the ideal that the government of Quebecshire has the authority for maintaining, as in carrying out, protecting, and exercising the sovereignty of the state. The first title’s sixth and seventh clauses are instrumental to the interpretation of the authority and mandate of international law in Quebecshire, and the place it holds in relation to that of the national government. It is our belief that TCN Resolution 015’s element of regulation and introduction of an international visa system conflicts with the principles laid out in the Constitution of Quebecshire, and that the ignition of this debate must establish the constitutional precedent on the subject of international law for the foreseeable future.

In the specific terms of Resolution 015, the Constitution does not allow any section within the Quebecshirite population the ability or authority to “expropriate” the national sovereignty of Quebecshire, which is defined as absolute. It is the opinion of the court that the exportation or transfer of authority, including in the forms of domestic regulation and direct domestic policy impacts, qualifies as expropriation of that authority. The Constitution establishes that the mandate of sovereignty is granted through the Quebecshirite citizenry, and thus maintained by the governments which they mandate. Therefore, it is our conclusion that transferring any distinctly domestic authority to the Council of Nations, or any child institutions thereof, qualifies as a limitation upon the sole provider of the mandate of national sovereignty which rests within the citizenry.

On the subject of international law in its broader form, the defining characteristic of an international law’s validity is to be its scope of alleged jurisdiction. An international document targetting the domestic policy of the member nations is not to be considered superior to the domestic laws of Quebecshire, as those are directly mandated by the Constitution’s comments on the Parliament. Resolutions targetting objectively international affairs such as global commerce, international security, and other related subjects do not pose a contradictory threat, and thus do not provide any issue."

— Mathéo Dufour, April 7, 2020

Dissenting Opinion

The dissenting opinion was primarily authored by René Corriveau, who sided with the Terraconserva Foreign Policy Institute in Quebecshire. His opinion was joind by Wilfrid Chuquet, Solène Beauchamp, François Bertillon, and Léa Charbonneau.

"The dissenting interpretation of the Council is that the mandate of governance and the ability to exercise sovereignty extends to the Quebecshirite delegates and bureaucrats that hold office in posts relating to the Council of Nations, and therefore have the authority to enforce these resolutions within Quebecshire. It is because of this that we believe that delegation has the right to abide by these resolutions as a result of their consenting nature of being on the Council of Nations in the first place, granting that institution a mandate of governance in its legal area so long as the populace does not rescind their confidence in the Council of Nations.

If the government of Quebecshire chooses to extend its bureaucracy to the Council of Nations, it is within its right to do so, similarly with other expansions of government departments and authority. The international law of all relevant forms should be of a binding validity unless that law comes into a direct confliction with the Constitution, rather than simply one regarding the interpretation of the type of authority the Council of Nations is to have in the first place.

Expropriation requires a form of symbolic confiscation of the authority to govern, and as long as the Quebecshirite delegation remains accountable to the Parliament and it, its decisions, and status to the public at large, it does not pose a threat of expropriation by agreeing to the aforementioned resolutions and other ones of a similar form. On these grounds, it should be expected that Quebecshire abides by the TCN Resolution 015."

— René Corriveau, April 7, 2020

Holding

The High Council ruled in favour of Philippe Dumont and the Administration of International Affairs and declared that Quebecshire must be non-compliant with TCN Resolution 015 due to its impact on domestic legal institutions in Quebecshire.