We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

[Res.] Reform Resolution I
#1

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I really do not know, how to feel about the resolutions I will propose today. On the one hand, I could be hopeful, because if the members of this house are willing to discuss and vote on this resolution, it means, the World Forum has not failed completely yet. It means, it serves its purpose as an international forum and it wants to improve itself wherever it falls short. On the other hand, it is heartbreaking to see, how the following resolutions, the Federal Republic of GI-Land will bring into the discussion, are needed, because we do not deliver on the promises we made to the world.

I personally want to decide, to remain hopeful and thus our delegation has analysed, where the problems of this organization lay. As the Efladian delegation already found out, our Charter might be too vague. This has had its justifiable reasons, no doubt about it, but time has shown, that the fundament of this organization is too hollow within and is one of the reasons, why we sometimes cannot take certain actions, or sanction members of this organization, who are not willing to follow our own set of rules. This means, even if it needs a 2/3 majority of this Assembly and a re-ratification of our Charter, that we need to make some changes to the texts of the Charter and the basic resolutions governing this forum’s organs.

What we also noticed is, that we might need some procedures, e.g. another, additional kind of resolution process, that is quicker and not tied to expansive formalities. While there are problems in the world, we need to tackle together and that demand resolutions or treaties, that are formulated extremely well and detailed, sometimes certain “basic actions” should not need a vast resolution text to be voted upon and adopted. A catalogue of standard actions will thus be proposed by us in cooperation with the Committee of International Law.

Lastly we need to make our adopted resolutions more accessible. It needs to be clearer, which resolutions are mandatory rules and which are voluntary. It needs to be clearer, that any of our members must follow certain procedures, as short or long as they may be, and know our rules and not do ego-trips the entire time. This is noticeable, ladies and gentlemen, and it has been criticized by us more than by any other nation in this Assembly: With all due respect, take this organization seriously finally and stop ignoring it and then blaming us, that our hands are tied! This is not how it works!

Now we propose the following and ask the Speaker to allow, that we will have separate votes on the chapters 1 and 2, and if wished for by the Assembly also on chapter 3, after the Assembly’s discussions have concluded, also because partially different majorities and national procedures are needed to implement the proposed changes.

[OOC: Text of the Resolution in the next post. I decided to not post this resolution in the thread created by Eflad, because this proposal is way more expansive and does not solely affect the Charter of the World Forum. While I think, what Eflad has proposed, can be found in this new resolution proposal combined with all resolutions we passed already, this draft is not based on his proposal. Thus I created this new discussion thread.]
Signed
Gianluca IV

Roleplayer (active in TSP since 2016)
TSPedia-Author
Head Bartender of the Lampshade Bar & Grill



Information about my roleplay
Pacifica GI-Land, Snolland (Hazelbrust), Guardian of the World Forum, IUFA-FWC/WFWC- and Pacivision Supervisor • 
Aurora Markatt (Maura)
Reply
#2

[Image: uniA0N6.png]
Resolution - Reform Resolution I

Chapter 1 - Amendments to the World Forum Charter

The Charter of the World Forum shall be amended in the following fashion:

In Article I, Section B, between Subsection 1 and 2 add:
1a. The World Forum shall have the right, to impose binding resolutions, the contents of which must be adopted through national legislation by all World Forum members. Such a resolution requires the approval of two-thirds of the Assembly.

In Article II, Section A, Subsection 1 add:
The World Forum shall have an organ—the Assembly—which shall serve as a forum of discussion and adopt policy recommendations as well as binding resolutions for member states of the World Forum.

In Article II, Section C, Subsection 1 remove and add:
The World Forum shall have a court—the International Court—which shall settle national and international disputes that are voluntarily submitted to it and to help the Forum, should the need for arbitration arise.

Article III shall be removed from the Charter and merged with WF-Resolution 2 to a new WF-Resolution 1c as proposed in Chapter 2, Section A.
A new Article III on commonly accepted international law shall be added, to emphasize once more what a membership in the World Forum also entails. It reads as follows:
Article III – Commonly accepted International Law

1. The members of the World Forum fully accept the Grovne Conventions on the rules of war, weapons banned in warfare, treatment of non-combattants in national and international conflicts, statehood, borders, navigation of the seas and trade.

2. The members of the World Forum fully accept the international ius cogens. It includes

a. the human rights as formulated in the “Declaration of Human Rights” of 1956
b. the prohibition of the threat and use of violence against another state’s territory or political sovereignty
c. the prohibition of genocide
d. the prohibition of slavery, including the trading of humans
e. the prohibition of racial discrimination
f. the prohibition of torture

3. The members of the World Forum recognize the general principles of law:

a. pacta sunt servanda
b. lex specialis derogat legi generali
c. lex posterior derogat legi priori
d. venire contra factum proprium

4. The members of the World Forum continue to accept all international treaties they have been a part of prior to their accession to the World Forum. This does not apply to treaties with contents going against any of the binding principles of this organization.

5. The members of the World Forum accept all binding resolutions passed by the Assembly and any finally effective verdicts spoken by the International Court.

6. The subsections 1-3 are to be applied in perpetuity unless fully superseded by new legislation.


In Article IV replace and add:
1. Amendments to the Charter of the World Forum shall be made after it is adopted by a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and ratified by two-thirds of the member states. require a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and the ratification of the amended Charter by two-thirds of the member states.

2. If the requirements of subsection 1 are met, the amended Charter affects all members of the World Forum equally.


Chapter 2 - Additional procedural resolutions
Section A - Introduction of World Forum Resolution 1c - Membership

1) WFR 2 – Establishment of a membership procedure for the WF and Article III - Membership of the original Charter of the World Forum shall be merged into a new WFR 1c – Membership. With its entry into force, WFR 2 will be lifted.

2) WFR 1c – Membership shall receive the following text:

WFR 1c – Membership

Section A – Purpose

This resolution regulates the conditions and procedures of accession, suspension and expulsion of members and observers of the World Forum. It shall further define the procedure on how a member or observer can terminate its relations to the organization.


Section B – Definitions

1. Founders of the World Forum shall be those, who participated in the 2017 Grovne Conference and have ratified the Charter.

2. Members shall be those states, who ratify the Charter and are approved by a simple majority vote in the Assembly.

3. Applicants shall be those states, who apply for membership in the World Forum.

4. Observers shall be those states or non-state entities, who are approved by a simple majority vote in the Assembly.

5. Observer applicants shall be those state or non-state entities, who apply for observership in the World Forum.

6. An application is a letter to the Speaker of the Assembly informing them about the state’s or non-state entity’s desired accession to or their desired promotion within the World Forum.

7. A promotion is the process of an observer becoming a member.

8. A violation of the tenets of the Charter is persistent, if the violation concerns Art. III, Subsection 2 c-f of the Charter or if the violation lasts for more than two years. The two years start running at the day of the first report of said violations to the Assembly.

9. A notice is a letter to the Speaker of the Assembly informing them about the state’s or non-state entity’s desired termination of their representation at or their demotion within the World Forum.

10. A demotion is the process of a member becoming an observer.


Section C – Accession, Promotion

1. After receiving an application for accession to the World Forum, the Speaker of the Assembly shall initiate the approval process. The applicant or observer applicant may send an envoy to the Assembly to observe the further process.

2. The approval process is open for five days. During this time, the members can debate about and vote on the application. The applicant or observer applicant becomes a member or observer of the World Forum by receiving a simple majority in the Assembly.

3. At the end of the approval process, the Speaker of the Assembly shall notify the applicant or observer applicant of the approval vote results. The applicant must ratify the Charter before being granted full membership rights.

4. The norms laid out in subsections 1-3 shall be applied accordingly, when the Speaker of the Assembly receives an application for promotion.


Section D – Suspension, Expulsion

1. Members in violation with the tenets of the Charter may be deprived of all their membership privileges (suspended) upon a motion by a member in the Assembly or upon a verdict of the International Court.

2. A member’s suspension upon a motion requires a two-thirds majority in favour of the motion in the Assembly.

3. The duration of the suspension is to be determined by a vote, which also requires a two-thirds majority. In case of a suspension upon a motion, it takes place after the successful motion. If after two rounds of voting, a two-thirds majority cannot be reached, a simple majority suffices.

4. The member, who shall be suspended, may not participate in the process unless the Speaker of the Assembly or the International Court allows it to do so. Either can limit, in which parts of the process said member may or may not participate.

5. Members in persistent violation with the tenets of the Charter may be expelled from the World Forum upon a motion by a member in the Assembly or upon a verdict of the International Court. For the expulsion upon a motion, subsections 2 and 4 apply accordingly.


Section E – Termination, Demotion

1. After receiving a notice, the Speaker of the Assembly announces the member’s or observer’s intent to terminate its ties to or its demotion within the World Forum to the Assembly.

2. The termination or demotion takes effect fourteen days after the notice has been received by the Speaker of the Assembly, yet not sooner than the first day of the following month.


Section B - Introduction of World Forum Resolution 1d - Debate and voting procedures

1) To codify our procedural rules on debates and voting, but also to lay out a framework on which the World Forum can define different types of resolutions, the Assembly shall pass WFR 1d – Debate and voting procedures.

2) WFR 1d – Debate and voting procedures shall receive the following text:

WFR 1d – Debate and voting procedures
Section A – Purpose

This resolution codifies the existing rules of procedure in regards of debates and voting. It also defines different types of resolutions, the World Forum can pass through their organs.


Section B – Resolution types

1. An ordinary resolution (resolution) is a written legal norm passed by the Assembly with a simple majority. Its implementation through the members’ national legislation is voluntary.

2. A binding resolution is a resolution, that is declared binding by the Assembly. It requires a two-thirds majority in the Assembly to pass. Its implementation through the members’ national legislation is mandatory. If a binding resolution does not receive a two-thirds, yet at least a simple majority, the implementation through the members’ national legislation is voluntary.

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. Its implementation through national legislation is only mandatory for those members, who have approved the resolution draft.

4. A resolution on procedural rules or the organizational structure of the World Forum or on the foundation of a World Forum sub-organization is binding. If a resolution in the sense of subsection 1 contains regulations on the subjects mentioned in sentence 1, then only those parts are binding.

5. Finally effective verdicts of the International Court are binding without requiring an approval vote in the Assembly.


Section C – Debate procedures

1. Any member or Committee may propose a debate on any political topic or a resolution draft. Any observer may propose a debate on any political topic. The International Court may suggest actions against members or observers to the Assembly.

2. The Speaker of the Assembly invites all members and observers to each session of the Assembly. They set the session’s agenda, and open, interrupt, resume and close the debates. They may warn members or observers, who misbehave in the Assembly and retain the right to strip a member or observer from their speaking rights or impose other sanctions, if the warnings do not lead to a change of behavior of said member or observer. Sanctionable misbehavior especially includes unparliamentary language, insulting or threatening an official, deliberately destroying property of an official or the World Forum and harming the body or health of an official. If there is no other way to reestablish the order in the Assembly, the Speaker of the Assembly may restore order by using the World Forum’s police.

3. Debates are mainly prioritized in the following manner:

a) suggestions from the International Court
b) resolution drafts proposed by a Committee or a group of members
c) resolution drafts proposed by a single member
d) applications on the accession or promotion of states
e) debates on a political topic proposed by a Committee
f) debates on a political topic proposed by a member
g) debates on a political topic proposed by an observer

Secondly older debate proposals are put on the agenda sooner than newer debate proposals.

4. The provisions of subsection 2 also apply figuratively to the Committees and International Court and their heads. Further details are regulated by their rules of procedure.


Section D – Voting procedures

1. A vote is required to approve a resolution draft.

2. If a vote on a resolution draft is an agenda item, the Speaker of the Assembly must establish a quorum at the opening or reopening of a session. The quorum is met, if at least half of the members of the Assembly are present in the assembly hall. If the vote on the resolution draft requires a two-thirds majority, at least two-thirds of the members of the Assembly must be present in the assembly hall. If a member doubts the quorum is still met, before a vote shall commence, the Speaker of the Assembly must reestablish a quorum.

3. The voting process on a resolution draft commences after a debate and a member or the Speaker of the Assembly motioning to vote. After the motion is seconded by other members and there has not been an objection to the motion, the Speaker of the Assembly may open the vote. An objection can be made once without any explanation. Any additional objection following that must be explained. The Speaker of the Assembly decides whether an explained objection is valid.

4. Voting is conducted either electronically or by raising hands. Each member has one vote and each vote has equal weight. Each member can either approve the resolution draft (Aye), reject the resolution draft (Nay) or abstain from the vote.

5. The duration of the voting period depends on the type of resolution draft presented to the Assembly. For resolutions in the sense of Section B, Subsections 1 and 4 it is three days, for binding and standard resolutions it is five days.

6. At the end of the voting period, the Speaker of the Assembly closes the vote. They tally the votes and announce the result to the Assembly.

7. Voting procedures in the Committees and at the International Court are regulated by their rules of procedure.


Section E – Stylistic guidelines for resolutions

1. Every resolution in the sense of Section B, Subsections 1, 2 or 4 consists of the logo of the World Forum, the resolution’s title and the resolution’s content divided into chapters, sections and subsections. Chapters and subsections are numbered with standard numerals, sections with the letters of the standard alphabet. The resolution draft presented to the Assembly must be in Austral. Section A shall always lay out the purpose of the resolution. Section B shall, if necessary, define legal terms used throughout the entirety of the resolution’s text. Binding resolutions shall declare their nature in the first or last section of the resolution draft.

2. Every standard resolution consists of the logo of the World Forum, the resolution’s title, the measure from Section F the member wishes to take and against whom the measure shall become effective and a comprehensive explanatory statement on the reasons and proportionality of the to-be-taken measure. The resolution draft can also regulate, in which way the measure shall be carried out. The resolution draft presented to the Assembly must be in Austral.

3. Resolutions are principally numbered according to the order they were approved of.


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:

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.


Chapter 3 - Amendments to World Forum Resolution 1

1) World Forum Resolution 1 shall be amended in the following fashion to bring more consistency to the office, make the work of the Assembly more efficient by avoiding too many elections and prevent nations, that are in violation with our organization’s principles to gain power:

In Section A, Subsection 3 replace:
The Speaker shall serve for 6 12 months at a time. No nation may hold the Speakership for more than 1 consecutive term.

In Section B, Subsection 1 replace:
5 11 months into the current Speaker's term, the election process shall begin.

Between Section B, Subsections 2 and 3 add:
2a. Nations against which there is an active trial at the International Court at the time of the election, or that have been judged by the International Court or have been suspended or expelled from the Assembly in the last 18 months may not be nominated.

In Section B, Subsection 4 replace:
The Nation receiving a majority shall be elected to the Speakership, with their World Forum Representative being styled as Speaker of the World Forum, and they shall take office at the conclusion of the previous president's Speaker’s term.

After Section B, Subsection 5 add:
5a. After 6 months, a snap election may be held already if half of the members wish for the Speaker’s removal.

Merge Section C, Subsection 3 with Section C, Subsection 3, Letter a:
The Speaker may nominate a Deputy Speaker to assist them in these duties as well as any others that future resolutions may assign to them. The Deputy Speaker will need to be elected with a simple majority voting in favor of their appointment and shall serve at the leisure of the Speaker. Should the Speaker be unable to fulfill their duties or be removed from office, the Deputy Speaker shall serve as acting Speaker until a new Speaker is elected.

Between Section C, Subsections 3 and 4 add:
3a. For the nomination of the Deputy Speaker, the provisions of Section B, Subsection 2a apply accordingly.

2) The first 12-month-term of a Speaker shall start after the Speakership-election in July 2022.
[-] The following 2 users Like GI-Land's post:
  • Eflad, Qwert
Reply
#3

Esteemed delegates,

Addressing this Assembly as its Speaker, I must welcome the initiative to establish clearer procedures for debate and voting. While this is a void I have sought to rectify with official policies issued by my office, this was never intended as anything other than a temporary solution, and it is positive to see member states seek to establish more permanent policies through more democratic processes.

If this Assembly wishes to pass standard format rules for resolutions, my office will be prepared to assist. Although its current utilization and contents are limited, my office maintains a public archive of World Forum design resources. In the event that standards are passed, I would not imagine resolution templates to be difficult to produce.

As for the contents of these proposals, I will not offer comment in my capacity as Speaker. To address all of you as the Esfalsan representative, however, I must raise a few concerns about the assignment of standard powers to the Assembly.

In particular, such powerful standard measures may lead to the over-politicization of votes on accession to membership, especially with only a simple majority needed to enact actions directly targeting individual states. Such political considerations should not be a barrier to membership, as to do so would only distract from the World Forum's power as a truly international forum that brings nations from all across Pacifica into cooperative dialogue.

Furthermore, there is no clear mechanism to implement these powers. Simply assigning them to the Assembly leaves open the question of how they will be carried out, especially because these powers do not follow the process of the proposed binding resolutions. The Assembly itself does not control any resources or forces to directly impose a fine, sanction, blockade, and so forth.

To speak more generally, binding resolutions may have a similar effect of providing an incentive against membership. The World Forum should not merely be a forum of countries with homogenous policies; it should allow dialogue between all countries, especially those with differing viewpoints, without the fear that a supermajority of other countries with similar policies to each other may simply overrule their national policies with a binding resolution.

Thank you all for your time and attention. Irrespective of these Esfalsan concerns, it is clear that changes are needed to our existing World Forum legislation. I look forward to a productive debate.

Robert Sontheimer
[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg] Esfalsa | NationStatesWiki | Roleplay | Discord

[Image: rank_officer.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]
[-] The following 2 users Like Pronoun's post:
  • GI-Land, Qwert
Reply
#4

Honorable Speaker,

I take your concerns very seriously, after all we are hoping on passing a resolution that all members of this Assembly can agree with. Therefore I would like to comment on your criticisms.

1) The concern about a potential over-politisation of the WF I cannot follow completely. The World Forum is a political organisation and it has decided politically, especially when it comes to memberships, already. This is why in our proposal we set the voting threshold to achieve membership in the Forum down from a 2/3 to a simple majority. As for the extensive use of standard measures: My delegation would be willing to add alternative vote requirements for standard measures, especially for detrimental measures against states, like a peacekeeping mission. However I'd like to remind you, that this is why we emphasized on the principle of proportionality in the context of standard measures. Whenever such one should be taken, the member who aims for having the Assembly adopt such a resolution must explain the necessity of such an action. It needs to have strong reasons; the more detrimental the to-be-taken measure, the stronger the argumentation needs to be. I believe that the Assembly and, if the targeted individual seeks recourse at the WFIC, our Court will take a correct approach to use those standard measures.

2) You mentioned it would be unclear on how the standard measures would be carried out. I disagree. As it is written in the proposed Res. 1d, Sec. E, Subsec. 2, S. 2 "[t]he resolution draft can also regulate, in which way the measure shall be carried out". In case the resolution does not regulate, how those measures shall be imposed by the Assembly and the standard resolution passes, each member, who voted in favour of the resolution decides themselves how they implement this kind of measure. Let me assure you, that if such a resolution passes on the grounds of wanting to impose "light economic sanctions" and then a member intervenes militarily, that this would be a breach of this and the passed resolution and the member themselves would be sanctioned by the Assembly and the International Court alike.
Here we would be also open to amend our proposal in such a way, that the extent of the measures, that are to be taken, must be clear instead of making that clarification voluntary. However, I'd like to remind the Assembly that this will ultimately lead to even longer procedures to pass such a resolution and limits the members of this Assembly even more in their "freedom of policy" than our current proposal already does.
As for the objection, that the WF doesn't have the resources to implement the standard resolutions: Yes, but this is not the sense of the standard measures. The standard measures are a quick procedure for the Assembly to pass resolutions on states and other entities, that violate our ground principles, which are basically the minimum that humankind can mostly agree on. The implementation happens through the individual members, namely those who voted in favour of the resolution. If they can't act upon it, the resolution stays a piece of paper.

3) I agree, the World Forum was and is supposed to be a place, where countries that don't think and act alike can discuss and negotiate and hopefully find a common ground. However these changes are targeted against the shortcomings of our organisation, that were ridiculed by members and non-members alike. How can we be an organisation stating we work for peace and human rights, having an International Court that should be respected by those who violate basic principles of humanity, and so forth, if we cannot and may not take action for it? If we merely want to be a discussion forum, we can do it like the Peony, take over Café Sonata and have some chitchat every half-a-year without the need for results coming out of it. I do think, this organisation aims to be more though and if that is a problem for a member, they can - just as you pointed out - either not be a member of this organisation thus isolating themselves or they can be a "simple observer", who has only the right to speak, but not to vote, but therefore does not need to fully accept our Charter and thus our common ground.

4) The fear of binding resolutions being implemented always now, I want to take away from you. You are not the only country fearing for too much intervention of this organisation. Our partners from Frost, who are also founding members of this organisation, are one of the biggest critics of plans to make this organisation bigger and more interventionist than it needs to be. This is why we connected binding resolutions to a 2/3 majority in the Assembly to pass them. We would be open to increase the needed support to up to 3/4 of the Assembly, however we do not think, we should drop our proposal of binding resolutions, because we've seen how certain members of this Assembly cherry-pick certain rulings, that we would've thought are clearly binding to everyone, with the reasoning, that their national policy is always above that of the WF. It has to be clear, that this was and is not the case.

I hope, I was able to take away some concerns from you and other members, who had or have similar doubts about our proposal.

Helene Meise
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of GI-Land
Signed
Gianluca IV

Roleplayer (active in TSP since 2016)
TSPedia-Author
Head Bartender of the Lampshade Bar & Grill



Information about my roleplay
Pacifica GI-Land, Snolland (Hazelbrust), Guardian of the World Forum, IUFA-FWC/WFWC- and Pacivision Supervisor • 
Aurora Markatt (Maura)
[-] The following 1 user Likes GI-Land's post:
  • Qwert
Reply
#5

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
Gianni: “Izaakia, I hate you so much. You’re such a good bad guy. Must be because of your genes“.
Gianni, 21:42 14 Dec 2020, # Pacifica Discussion
[-] The following 1 user Likes Izaakia's post:
  • Qwert
Reply
#6

Honorable Speaker, esteemed delegates and colleagues,

let me start by saying that we welcome the resolution brought forward by the ambassador of GI-Land. It has our full support. It provides the World Forum with democratic, transparent and effective tools with which we can rise to our goal of peace around the globe.

It is not only unavoidable for this organization to become a political one, but necessary and imminent! If we want to move forward of the common goal of prosperity, stability and most importantly peace, we must work together to reform this organization to a union which acts like one. And Ambassador Meise's proposal does that. It provides the WF with the needed resources for it to be able to achieve the goals I just listed.
To ambassador Graves, who said that binding resolutions are not to be implemented because undemocratic nations cannot have an equal say in resolutions, I say: Then vote "Nay" and present arguments as to why the resolutions by those nations are to be rejected. Furthermore, binding resolutions require a two-thirds majority which, without broad consent and agreement, is hard to acquire.
Therefore, these measure all but undemocratic.

The only issue we have with this resolution is the clause on "unparliamentary language". This is where we partly agree with the ambassador Graves that it is restricting free speech. We therefore propose a change:
Quote:"Sanctionable misbehavior especially includes unparliamentary undignifying language, insulting or threatening an official, deliberately destroying property of an official or the World Forum and harming the body or health of an official."
Hereby we allow free speech but reject insults.

I finish by saying that with this resolution we would set an example for a World Forum whose members not only talk the talk but walk the walk. And to walk this walk we need shoes, and those shoes are the tool provided here.

Dr. Lina Frere,
Ambassador for the Technocratic Republic of Eflad to the World Forum
Republic of Eflad
[-] The following 1 user Likes Eflad's post:
  • Qwert
Reply
#7

Honorable ambassadors,

please allow me to defend our proposal mainly based on the argumentation of what Ambassador Graves has brought forward.
Quote: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. 

1) I don't think, that giving countries, especially members of this organisation, a right to speak, propose resolutions and vote is undemocratic, even if they themselves would be undemocratic. Otherwise we would need to prohibit voting to all voters, who are far-right or far-left or liberal-anarchists in our democratic countries. To be honest with you, I find prohibiting someone to speak and vote far more undemocratic than to let them have that right and also it would go against one of the main principles of this organisation, which is, as our Speaker has mentioned, to provide a forum to all Pacifican nations. It's without question, that extremists - even though I'm not sure we have many or any of those as members of this organisation here - need to be fought against democratically. This could happen, as Ambassador Frere pointed out, by just arguing against those members and their resolutions or by voting against their proposals. On the other hand: Not all their proposed resolutions would be binding or, even if so, would affect anything, that a democratic government should or could be against. The fact alone, that a traditional monarchy e.g. brings in a resolution proposal, doesn't make their arguments or suggestion less valid.
 
Quote: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. 

2) With the removal of the word "voluntary" we are just making sure, that the International Court has the ability to judge states and entities, that are not directly tied to this organisation or aren't able to file a complaint here. I would like to remind you of the Romordian situation. The Romordians have not or were not able to come to the International Court to file a complaint, thus, because NAGB is not part of this organisation, the WFIC was not able to suggest a peacekeeping mission in NAGB to restore peace, stability and potentially save the Romordians. Instead you felt the need to go in there, which ended up in you being trialed at the International Court for a disruption of peace and stability. I think, it should be in your own interest to support that amendment, so that the Assembly and the International Court alike have an undisputable right to act upon similar situations as in NAGB.
 
Quote: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.

3) In our view, nations don't have anything to do or restore within another nation's border in principal. There are exemptions of it, where violence might be necessary, that's right, but it should never be one of the first actions to be taken, but one of the very last measures in an emergency situation.
 
Quote: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.

4) We disagree. In any democracy, if a law is passed by more than 1/2 of the parliament's members or, if the law is substantial enough to the principle of the state, if a law is passed by 2/3 of the parliament's members, the other members of parliament and their voters need to abide by those laws they argued and voted against too. Otherwise we would live in some kind of anarchy. You refer to a provision that asks not only for the support of 2/3 of this Assembly, but also of 2/3 of the national governments in the member states. We think, this quorum is set high enough, that (1) if it is met, that it is more than justifiable for this Assembly to accept those amendments fully and (2) it is likely enough to not be met in cases of very divisive amendments to the Charter, e.g. a prohibition of nuclear weapons or fundamentals that would make this organisation more than it needs to be. Also it is worthy to note, that the current version of the Charter already contains the provision. We just made it clearer in its language, so potential grey zones are removed. You accepted the old Charter by the way, so you accepted the provision already, thus arguing against it seems kind of hyprocritical to me or, if not that, shows you haven't taken a good enough look at our Charter.
 
Quote: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.

5) Please read the rest of WFR 1c, Sec. D to notice, that a suspension upon motion has certain requirements and thus a hostile state cannot simply remove the voice of a nation in this forum by themselves. Please also refer to proposed WFR 1d, Sec. F, Subsec. 2, Letter i which lays out, that a suspension of a member is one of the more detrimental standard measures to take and thus its proportionality would need to be laid out by that "hostile member". In other words: A suspension of a member is not as easily reachable as you make it out to be.
 
Quote: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.

6) As for my seemingly alternative views on democracy, I already said everything. As for the insinuation against the International Court, let me remind you again, that the judges at the International Court are independent from the Speaker. They can also become active against a member of this Assembly by themselves without the Speaker asking them to do anything. I don't think, it is alright to discredit our independent organ here in the Assembly in such a way, just because you are hurt about the fact that there are two trials against your nation currently.
 
Quote: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.

7) I agree, that there should be no topic barred from discussion in this Assembly. I disagree with unbased accusations against anyone. However what you principally object here, I can follow and thus I would agree to adopt Ambassador Frere's proposed amendment to our resolution draft and have undignifying language prohibited instead of unparliamentary language. This suggestion is also good, as it defines better what I meant with "unparliamentary language" and prevents potential future Speakers not coming from a fully democratic member state to limit the potential discourse. Thus I thank you for your constructive criticism on this draft.
 
Quote: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.

8) You argumented yourself, that violence can become necessary sometimes and I agreed with you there. It's just that principally speaking, violence and threats should not be an option, however under certain circumstances they should be available to this organisation and their members.
 
Quote: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.

9) The bars for suspension and expulsion are definitely not set low. The bar for a trial at the International Court is indeed set lower, however the Interational Court decides upon an appeal to it, whether they see the need to open the desired trial or not. And if they decide that, an organ consisting of several independent judges from several member states with often opposing political views, well then I suppose, it's not to be taken light-hearted that a trial is going on against your state.
Furthermore we do not make an end to the "innocent until proven guilty" policy of democratic judicial systems like this one. We must protect the World Forum however from nations becoming Speaker, where a higher probability of them having violated our Charter and its principles exists, because if they become Speaker and have either been suspended or expelled recently or are proven guilty during their 12 months term in the Speakership, they could and will bring this organisation in discredit. This cannot be in our, the World Forum's, interest.

Helene Meise
Ambassador of the Federal Republic of GI-Land
Signed
Gianluca IV

Roleplayer (active in TSP since 2016)
TSPedia-Author
Head Bartender of the Lampshade Bar & Grill



Information about my roleplay
Pacifica GI-Land, Snolland (Hazelbrust), Guardian of the World Forum, IUFA-FWC/WFWC- and Pacivision Supervisor • 
Aurora Markatt (Maura)
[-] The following 1 user Likes GI-Land's post:
  • Qwert
Reply
#8

Honored and esteemed ambassadors, speaker, and all others here.

Eareamland is in full support of this motion.
"Maybe embarassing yourself is an Earamian thing..."
-StoicMetoik, 4:02 PM, 17/04/2022
Reply
#9

Honorable Ambassadors,

The Kingdom of Stoinia wholeheartedly supports the proposed resolution. The changes will give the World Forum the capabilities needed to ensure it remains an institution of peace. Our nation therefore reaffirms the need to implement the changes as soon as possible so that we may enable the necessary measures for the current predicaments in the South Pacific. We need to be prepared when the situation in Emerald-Denver or other nations further escalate and act upon the barbarity that takes place over there. This resolution is a new step to attain the peace this organization holds dear.

Tudor Segărceanu
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Stoinia
Pacifica: MyriaSallodesia, Stoinia • A1-0: Stoinian Star Kingdom • Aurora: Kingdom of Threnebor
[-] The following 1 user Likes Maverick's post:
  • GI-Land
Reply
#10

Esteemed delegates,

It seems increasingly clear that a serious discrepancy has emerged between empowering the World Forum to respond to crises, and enabling it to routinely overrule the principles of national self-determination.

Arguments stating that "nations don't have anything to do or restore within another nation's border in principle" ring hollow with the introduction of binding resolutions which, by their very essence, are means by which nations may affect events in other states. It is alarming that member states would be forced to adopt binding World Forum resolutions as legislation potentially even over disagreement from the people of that country.

The World Forum is not a government; it is a forum of governments. Directly applying the ideas of democratic government to a forum of governments may seem logical, but if we did so, there would no longer be a need for national governments. Instead, we must recognize that each and every nation has its own unique cultural, historical, and socioeconomic background. Each and every nation has its own political systems. Each and every nation has its own population. These aspects of a country will never be homogenous, and we should never seek to paint all member states in broad strokes via binding resolutions; because even if a majority or even supermajority of the member states here vote in favor of a resolution, foreign powers still should not have the right to impose their own beliefs on the people in a country who may not share those beliefs. Unfortunately, this is precisely what binding resolutions would impose onto those countries voting against them.

Of course, this is a different matter if and only if it becomes clear that the governments in place in a country may not be truly representative of its people. While it is alarming that the deployment of military personnel via a peacekeeping mission or international blockade can be accomplished with only a simple majority, with clearer safeguards, the process of standard actions may be workable. For this to be the case, however, clearer standards of proportionality, or a more clearly defined hierarchy of what actions are more severe than others, must be established. Simply stating that actions taken must be proportionate reveals good intentions but also a mechanism ripe for abuse.

Thank you all for your time.

Robert Sontheimer,
speaking as the Representative of Esfalsa
[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg] Esfalsa | NationStatesWiki | Roleplay | Discord

[Image: rank_officer.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Pronoun's post:
  • Izaakia
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .