Extend the Data Model to Allow a Property "Jurisdiction" for Organizations

In order to implement legal citation styles without a workaround, the data model should be extended so that organizations have an additional property "Jurisdiction". The entries in that model should be drawn from a further list "Jurisdictions" and each entry of the type Jurisdiction in that list should include the full name and an abbreviation so that the citation style can decide whether to print the full name or the abbreviation of the jurisdiction (this is particularly pertinent where the abbreviation of a jurisdiction is confusing in some contexts, e.g. "Cth." for "Australia"). Ideally, it would also be possible to indicate if one jurisdiction is the parent of another jurisdiction. This is necessary because legal citation styles such as Bluebook, McGill guide or AGLC require that jurisdictions are indicated if the jurisdiction of the court rendering the decision is not obvious from the rest of the citation. At the same time, the jurisdiction is a property that with very few exceptions – House of Lords, UKSC, and Privy Council come to mind – relates to the court, not the decision. The few exceptions could be dealt with by having different entries in the organizations list depending on the capacity in which HL, UKSC, or PC render their decision. The hierarchical relationship between jurisdictions is necessary because legal citation styles usually slightly vary the citation depending on the main jurisdiction from which the decision comes. For example, the McGill guide prescribes slightly different rules for Canadian, US, French, or British cases. Thus, it would be helpful to be able to record the information that Ontario is a sub-jurisdiction of Canada, England and Wales a subdivision of the UK, and the First District of Texas a sub-jurisdiction of Texas, which in turn is a subdivision of the US.