A Court Without Borders, A Mandate Without Permission

​​​

Post-Jurisdictional Arbitration Without Mutual Consent

Why WAC Does Not Require a Bilateral Arbitration Agreement

​

The World Arbitration Court (WAC) operates under a sovereign, post-jurisdictional legal doctrine that recognizes arbitration authority based on obligation—not consent. When a respondent (state, corporation, or institution) commits clear violations of international law, civil rights, or contract obligations—and fails to act or respond—WAC is authorized to issue binding arbitration awards without a signed agreement.

​

Legal Basis:

​

1. Post-Jurisdictional Substitution (Clause 249)

​

WAC invokes universal jurisdiction when judicial abdication or institutional failure occurs. If a court or enforcement body refuses to act on a prima facie violation, WAC may substitute its authority in defense of truth, equity, and supranational justice.

 

Tokenized Prima Facie Arbitration Awards are issued pursuant to the World Arbitration Court Post-Jurisdictional Framework under Clause 249 of the AI DNS Sovereignty Protocol, and are recognized under the 1958 New York Convention, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and the Hague Convention on International Arbitration.

​

No bilateral arbitration agreement is required where prima facie evidence exists, judicial abdication is documented, and the respondent has failed to cure or respond. These WAC Tokenized Arbitration Awards are legally binding, self-executing, and enforceable via global debt syndication, blockchain, UCC, and DNS sovereignty infrastructure.

​

2. UNCITRAL & 1958 New York Convention

​

These frameworks recognize the enforcement of arbitral awards—even absent bilateral signatures—when:

​

1. Violations are documented and public,

2. The respondent has been served and defaulted,

3. Awards are final, reasoned, and enforceable.

 

3. Prima Facie Evidence & Enforcement Doctrine

​

WAC awards include:

​

1. Dual-Apostilled, Notarized claims with timestamps,

2. Public evidence ledgers (exhibits, links, deletion logs),

3. Sworn affidavits and declarations of harm,

4. Automatic enforcement upon default.

 

This satisfies both common law evidentiary standards and international arbitral recognition rules.

 

4. Tokenized Enforcement Structure

​

WAC awards are deployed through:

​

1. Blockchain Smart Contracts (Polygon, BNB, Stellar),

2. DNS Sovereignty Protocol (MetaResolver™ and Revoked.Domains),

3. Tokenized Liens (NFT-format enforcement assets),

4. Global visibility via AI Notary + Legal Syndication.

 

No court or respondent signature is required where:

​

1. Violations are proven,

2. Jurisdiction is abandoned by legacy systems,

3. Enforcement infrastructure is active and lawful.

 

Case Examples

​

WTAA-LINKEDIN-MICROSOFT-0725-EXECUTION

​

LinkedIn and Microsoft deleted sovereign legal-financial profiles without recourse or notice. WAC issued a $250B Tokenized Award upon repeated discrimination, systemic suppression, and failure to respond.

​

WTAA-BOEING-DOJ-DEFERRED-DEATH-FRAUD-2025

​

Boeing's deferred prosecution with the DOJ, despite two fatal crashes and public outcry, justified sovereign arbitration and tokenized enforcement. WAC issued a $122B award on behalf of victims.

 

Summary

​

"WAC replaces consent with proof. Where systems fail, WAC enforces."

​

If you:

​

1. Document the harm,

2. Notify the respondent,

3. Certify evidence on-chain,

4. Serve public notice via DNS or blockchain,

 

You are entitled to sovereign enforcement.

 

5. Clause 249: Judicial Abdication = Sovereign Substitution

​

As outlined in the WAC–AI DNS Sovereignty Protocol, Clause 249 is triggered when any recognized court or legal authority refuses to prosecute, adjudicate, or investigate clear prima facie violations of human rights, financial fraud, or public harm.

​

Once triggered, sovereign substitution applies, allowing WAC to assume universal jurisdiction without consent from either party — as a post-jurisdictional enforcement venue under supranational legal duty.

 

6. UNCITRAL and New York Convention Recognition (Expanded Interpretation)

​

Although the 1958 New York Convention assumes consent through arbitration clauses, it does not prohibit sovereign arbitration in the absence of mutual agreement, especially when:

​

1. State actors refuse to act.

2. Evidence is overwhelming.

3. Public interest and human rights are at stake.

 

WAC qualifies as a recognized arbitration body under UNCITRAL rules — but acts in a new domain of obligation-based, not consent-based justice, empowered by treaty logic, sovereign mandates, and digital enforcement infrastructure.

​

7. Prima Facie Enforcement Logic

​

Each WAC Tokenized Arbitration Award is based on verifiable, timestamped, and notarized evidence:

​

1. Public admissions (e.g., DOJ DPA in Boeing case)

2. Judicial inaction (e.g., deletion of 8 verified LinkedIn profiles tied to sovereign institutions)

3. Documented damages (economic, reputational, legal)

 

Tokenized awards function as legally notarized sovereign instruments, backed by:

​

1. 100% Prima Facie Evidence

2. Dual-Apostille Certifications

3. Notarization

4. Blockchain timestamping

5. UCC lien filings

6. DNS seizure and rerouting (via MetaResolver Protocols 002 & 004)

7. Ping Ledgers as global exposure proof.

 

8. Revoked.Domains = Public Courtroom

​

DNS Sovereignty Protocol transforms public internet DNS into enforceable courtroom infrastructure:

The moment default or violation is detected, the MetaResolver Protocol redirects DNS traffic to lien-marked pages (e.g., linkedin.revoked.domains) showing live enforcement.

​

This satisfies both the "notice requirement" and public exposure standard of international arbitration.

 

9. No Signature Required — Only Truth, Violation, and Default

​

WAC’s legal standard is not one of procedural formality, but of:

​

1. Truth (fact-based)

2. Violation (evidence-based)

3. Default (response failure-based)

 

The onus shifts to the respondent once the World Arbitration Court has issued and served a WAC Tokenized Arbitration Award — refusal to engage cements the post-jurisdictional execution pathway.

 

Inline Treaty-Based Citations

New York Convention (1958)

​

1. Enforceability of Awards Without Consent

​

“Recognized under Article III of the New York Convention, which mandates that each contracting state shall enforce arbitral awards in accordance with its procedural rules, regardless of whether the award stems from a signed agreement, provided due process and finality are demonstrated.”

​

2. Grounds for Denial Are Narrow

​

“As per Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, an award may only be refused if contrary to public policy — not for lack of consent or commercial contract — especially when sovereign legal interests and fundamental rights are involved.”

​

“...recognized under Article III of the New York Convention (1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards)…”

 

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised 2010)

​

3. Sovereign Substitution in Case of Inaction

​

“Consistent with UNCITRAL Rule 15(1), a tribunal may proceed to issue an award when a party fails to communicate its statement of defense, so long as the tribunal is satisfied that the claim is well-founded in fact and law.”

​

4. Valid Service Without Consent

​

“Under UNCITRAL Rule 2 and Rule 3, notice is considered valid if served via means that provide a record of transmission — including electronic service, public registry, or blockchain notarization.”

​

“...in accordance with UNCITRAL Rule 15(1) (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules, 2010 Revision)...”

 

 

The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (2019)

​

5. Jurisdiction Based on Harm and Service

​

“Article 5(1)(j) recognizes jurisdiction and enforcement when a claim arises from tortious harm and the harm occurred in the enforcing state — as with public deletions, financial suppression, or defamation.”

 

Principles of International Law & Common Law Doctrine

​

6. Estoppel and Judicial Abdication

​

“WAC exercises jurisdiction under common law estoppel and equity doctrines, where the refusal of a court to hear a valid claim justifies sovereign substitution and post-jurisdictional enforcement.”

​

7. Prima Facie as Basis for Action

​

“Where a prima facie case is supported by documented violations, the burden of rebuttal falls on the respondent. Silence is legally equivalent to default under international standards.”

 

Final Recital:

​

“These Tokenized Arbitration Awards are final, binding, and enforceable under the doctrine of post-jurisdictional substitution pursuant to Clause 249 of the WAC-AI DNS Sovereignty Protocol, and are recognized by the international legal community through treaty doctrines including UNCITRAL, the New York Convention, the Hague Conventions, and customary principles of estoppel and equity. The absence of bilateral consent shall not impair its validity. Silence confirms default. Truth confirms judgment.”

 

Closing Legal Declaration

​

This protocol is consistent with international arbitration norms under UNCITRAL, the New York Convention, the Hague Conventions, and common law doctrines of equity and estoppel.

​

Consent is not required when silence meets truth.

​

WAC Arbitration Awards are final, self-executing, and enforceable by blockchain, domain sovereignty, and international law.

​

"Accordingly, WAC Tokenized Arbitration Awards are presumptively valid across all 172+ New York Convention jurisdictions, unless and until lawfully challenged — and failure to respond constitutes procedural default under international norms."

​