Frequently asked questions

No. The Court's judgments have no legal force; they are opinions and recommendations. By their nature they are non-binding — opinions and recommendations, not legal determinations. Parties decide for themselves whether to comply.

A party who believes a judgment is unjust may publish a statement of its reasons for not complying.

Whether people carry out a judgment voluntarily depends on whether it is fair and reasonable. Voluntarily complying with a fair and reasonable moral judgment shows that a party is of high moral character.

Conversely, refusing to comply with a plainly fair and reasonable judgment reveals low moral standards. In that case, business partners and stakeholders, to protect their own interests, may choose to limit or end their cooperation with that party.

The Court is an independent civil adjudicating body with no official backing. Fairness and reasonableness are its life and the basis of its existence. Its judgments have no legal force; if they were also unfair or unreasonable, they would have no moral persuasive power at all.

Moreover, a party may publish a statement of its reasons for not complying, exposing directly to the public any injustice or unreasonableness in the judgment. This mechanism creates a built-in incentive for the Court always to pursue fairness and reason.

It is entirely lawful. Under the constitutional principle that whatever the law does not prohibit is permitted, the constitutional principle of freedom of expression, and the principle of public order and good morals, the Court is fully lawful.

The Court has acquired independent legal personality in Delaware, in New Brunswick, Canada, and in the District of Columbia. Its registration can be verified on the official website of the World Credit Organization.

The World Credit Organization is a democratic organization built on the separation of powers; the Court is one of the three powers and adjudicates disputes independently. Presidents, moral judges, grand moral judges and jurors are not subordinate to one another and act independently.

Cases are tried and decided independently by a moral tribunal; anyone may supervise, but no one may interfere. Jurors are drawn at random from among individual members.

Moral judges serve one-year terms renewing automatically without limit, in effect near-life tenure; grand moral judges serve for life. Removal requires a membership referendum and, short of proven misconduct or incapacity, is not possible — and never for holding to the principles of fairness and justice.

Because its judgments are speech protected by the constitutional principle of free expression, the Court is not confined by state legal jurisdiction. It can hear and decide disputes of every kind — from a minor neighbourhood quarrel to an international conflict — regardless of borders, ethnicity or legal system. If the plaintiff is willing to submit the dispute, the Court may accept the case and open proceedings.

In theory, most disputes arise because one or more parties have, knowingly or not, breached universal human moral standards. Anyone who believes another party has breached those standards may ask the Court for its service.

The Court opens proceedings at the plaintiff's request; whether or not the defendant responds does not affect the application and enforcement of the Standard.

Not responding raises the plaintiff's cost of gathering evidence and the Court's cost of trial, but the defendant may also lose the chance to show it has been wronged, to clear up a misunderstanding, to obtain forgiveness or to resolve the conflict.

First- and second-instance rulings may be appealed within fifteen days of receipt. At any instance, a party may within fifteen days publish a notice of non-acceptance in the media, on the international credit supervision network or on its own website, and notify the tribunal in writing, thereby excluding the ruling's effect on itself.

If a party takes none of these steps, the ruling takes effect on the date it states.