Mr. Speaker,

while I can follow your reasoning, I cannot support it.
If the World Forum is not able to take measures, that are binding, members will forever view their legislation above anything the World Forum decides on. What I mean with that is: We are a forum that tries to reach consensus based decisions and if those can be reached, are declared binding and receive a supermajority, then I don't see, why any of our members should have the nerve to see themselves above that consensus. If we let this egocentrism continue to reign over us, the thought that the world and what a supermajority of it wants is worth less than what a few politicians of a single country have in their interest, then I don't think we need to bother about finding a consensus-based decision at all. Just look at the NAGB situation last year, where the USI has found a consensus with all of us in the Assembly only to attack the country unilaterally anyway. This must be prevented from our point of view and binding resolutions are the path to take for that. Maybe we could let the Assembly decide in a separate vote, whether to keep the portions in this resolution dealing with binding resolutions, once the time for voting has come.

As for the standard measures, I'm not seeing that what we've written is unclear. We explained what we mean with "principle of proportionality" and have defined each legal term tied to it. We laid out that the reasons, why each trait of the principle is met, needs to be explained through the suggested resolution. We did also rank the standard measures based on their severity and said, that in a standard case - but even in an emergency case - we are ought to take the less severe measures always at first and then one-by-one until we reach the most detrimental measure. We have also shown our willingness to change the voting requirements for standard measures, so more than a simple majority is needed. So all points, you have brought up here against this new resolution type, lead nowhere, because we already took care of exactly those potential criticisms from the get-go.

Helene Meise
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of GI-Land