Esteemed Delegates.

Whilst I applaud the general intent of the GI Land delegation, and support much of its contents. I cannot stand by and allow some of these proposed amendments to go without challenge, as I shall lay out.

Firstly, Article I, Section B, between Subsection 1 and 2, where the idea that this assembly can impose legally binding resolutions is an absurd overstretch of powers that is fundamentally undemocratic. The idea that a corrupt and undemocratic nation such as Ryccia or The Frost Empire can have an equal say on a resolution to bind the laws of a democracy such as The United States of Izaakia or Sedunn is quite frankly absurd. 

Secondly, In Article II, Section C, Subsection 1 the removal of the requirement for disputes at the International Court to be voluntary. In an organisation where you are proposing that defendants in an international court case are disqualified from leadership of the world forum, this act opens up the international court process to politicisation and exploitation for nations to illegitimately put forward their own agenda. 

Thirdly, Article III section 2b the prohibition of the use of threat or violence, is a fundamentally naive view of a world where military action is often necessary to maintain one’s sovereignty and security, and often to prevent injustice in a foreign nation. The rigidity of this section is unreasonable, as is the particularly well written section 6, which implies that this legislation is unimpeachable.

Fourthly, Article IV section 2, the world forum should not have the ability to impose new laws on nations who do not ratify changes to the world forum. The assembly fundamentally has no rights to do so, and it insist on such a measure undermines the democratic rights of nations and their citizens.

Fifthly, Chapter 2 - Additional procedural resolutions, Section A - Introduction of World Forum Resolution 1c - Membership, Section D 1, a member has their rights suspended after another member initiates a motion against said state. This rule presumes the guilt of a nation without backing or democracy, and is open to abuse by hostile state entities to remove the voice of a nation from this forum without a reasonable basis.

Sixthly WFR 1d – Debate and voting procedures, section B, 2 & 5, it is as mentioned previously undemocratic to allow foreign nations, many of which are not democratic to impose binding legislation onto a democratic nation. Specifically on section 5, where IC judge choices can be politically motivated by the speaker.

Seventhly, WFR 1d - Debate and voting procedures, section C - 2 banning the use of unparliamentary language is a violation of both sense, and rights to free speech, which in this assembly should be paramount. There should be no topic or accusation that is off the table, and speech should not be curtailed. We should be able to call a pig a pig, and mr speaker this suggestion is a pig.

Eighty,WFR 1d -Section F2, L and M are in direct contradiction to other elements in this set of reforms, such as Article III section 2b.

Ninthly, Chapter 3 Between Section B, Subsections 2 and 3, is fundamentally against the right of nations to be innocent until proven guilty, an open case against a nation should not be a reason to prevent their accession to the speakership, especially when the bar is to be set so low for initiating a case.

Overall, I cannot see these amendments positively, as they are often undemocratic and unreasonable, and the adoption of these reforms in full will cause the United States of Izaakia to question whether this organisation is suitable for us, or for any other purpose.

Ambassador Gustave Graves