Esteemed delegate,

On standard measures, then, Esfalsa would propose the following changes to the originally proposed wording:

Section B – Resolution types

3. A standard resolution is a resolution, which makes use of the standard measures the World Forum can take as laid out in Section F. It requires a two-thirds majority of the Assembly to pass in general, and a three-fourths majority if the standard the Assembly wishes to skip the provisions in Section F, Subsection 2, Letters a-f, as provided for by Section F, Subsection 1. If passed, iIts implementation through national legislation is only mandatory for those members, who have approved the resolution draft.

Section F – Standard measures

1. The Assembly has the right to make use of the standard measures listed in subsection 2 through approving a standard resolution. Principally the measures must be taken one after the other from the least severe to the most detrimental one. In emergency situations, less severe measures, namely the measures listed in Subsection 2, Letters a-f, can be skipped. The Assembly shall always respect the principle of proportionality as defined in Subsection 4 when a standard measure is taken.

2. Standard measures are, in order from least to most severe:

a) a complaint by the Assembly
b) a formal complaint letter by the Speaker of the Assembly
c) installment of human rights or electoral observers, depending on applicability
d) a fine
e) light diplomatic sanctions
f) light economic sanctions
g) a condemnation
h) the calling of the International Court
i) the suspension of the member or observer
j) severe economic sanctions
k) severe diplomatic sanctions
l) an international blockade
m) a peacekeeping mission
n) the expulsion of the member or observer

3. The Assembly can take standard measures against any nation, organization or individual, even if they are not entities in the sense of World Forum Resolution 1b, Section B, Subsection 1, Letter a.

4. A measure is proportionate, if it is suitable, necessary and appropriate. A measure is suitable, if it can reach the set goal or at least helps in reaching said goal. A measure is necessary, if it is the one suitable measure impairing the affected party and the general public the least. A measure is appropriate, if the aimed for advantage for the general public is not objectively disproportionate in comparison to the disadvantage occurring to the affected party.

5. In accordance with World Forum Resolution 1b, Section B, Subsection 1, Letter a, the affected party or a member has the right to call the International Court and take legal action against those measures. This does not stop the enforcement of the standard measures.

6. In the event a standard measure is brought before the International Court for review, before a decision is made, the enforcement of standard measures may continue unless the International Court issues a temporary injunction. Such injunctions may be issued if and only if a party demonstrates that irreparable harm will occur without such an order, and that such harm outweighs any harm caused to the opposing party as a result of imposing such an order.

On the issue of binding resolutions, Esfalsa continues to object to the notion that the World Forum should be able to reign supreme over national legislatures. This is not an issue of egocentrism; nor is it an issue of consensus. Finding a consensus-based solution is not simply a matter of following a supermajority; it is about hearing the unique perspectives from nations across the world, and recognizing that in those unique circumstances, unique solutions may emerge. While others may increasingly see the World Forum as a top-down organization imposing legislation onto its members, Esfalsa envisions a more successful future as a bottom-up organization that responds to the challenges facing each individual member state in order to improve peace, security, and prosperity across Pacifica. Rather than writing our own rules, we should listen to the particular challenges facing each country.

Ambassador Meise references Izaakia acting against the general consensus of the World Forum last year. However, such emergency situations cannot be compared to passing binding resolutions as a matter of routine — especially since these proposed amendments include the introduction of standard measures specifically for emergency situations. Esfalsa would be willing to accept standard measures provided sufficient protections are in place to ensure those measures are not abused; but we must question the usefulness of binding measures other than to routinely overrule national sovereignty and self-determination, if emergency situations can already be addressed by standard measures.

In any case, Esfalsa would welcome dividing the question with respect to these amendments. There are many that would receive our wholehearted support.

Robert Sontheimer
speaking as the representative of Esfalsa