| [Res.] Reform Resolution I |
|
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
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)
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. 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
Respected colleagues, the international community wonders where the WF is when international laws are violated. When genocide and war rage on. It expects us to be there. And we, the WF, must answer this call! Sedunn supports this resolution and the amendment proposed by Dr. Lina Frere. The need for resolution has been abundantly clear in the recent year.
Tavtid Lekmienn Ambassador to the World Forum Kingdom of Sedunn (OOC questions: - There is mention of a World Forum’s police. I don't think we have a resolution, definition or previous mention of it, but maybe we need something like that? - It is suggested we should have 12-month terms. While I agree from an IC point of view, I think that it will be too long for RPers. Perhaps we should considering leaving it unchanged?)
(OOC-answers:
- "World Forum police" as in police forces without a policing mandate inside Sedunn, but within the WF. I assumed, we have that, as otherwise the Sedunnic police could theoretically execute Sedunnic law within the WF's organs, which should not be the case. Maybe I made an assumption too much there though, I admit. - We have a Speaker and Deputy Speaker, with IRL personas behind it. In case, both are not available/don't do their job, the Assembly can IRP vote on removing them from their office, if needed (typically due to inaction), so while I see, there could be an increase in vote-outs or resignations, I don't see it as too problematic. Also this new 12 months term gives us IRL the opportunity to follow our Speaker duties, if we e.g. became Speaker, but then suddenly don't have the time for the first 3-4 months to actually act upon it. Normally people then just shrugged and went on to prepare the next Speakership election, now we can say: "Well, I got time now, so better get to my Speaker job late than never". I hope, it's understandable what I mean ^^ To you and also to Pronoun: Just to make it clear once again, Eflad's proposal of exchanging the word "unparliamentary" with "undignifying" language I accept fully and it is now considered part of the original resolution draft. I didn't change my original draft, so people can appropriately react to it and see, how the discussion went and why it went the way it did. Other changes, where I wrote, that I'd be open to implement changes to the resolution draft, I have not adopted. There a vote on different possible lines of text would be needed.)
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)
(OOC: How about 6 months, and the previous speaker becomes deputy speaker under the next speaker so they can finish things off?)
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
(OOC: This might be a feasible option IRL. IRP I'd see the problem, that some nations might not want certain countries to be their deputies, e.g. GI-Land would never nominate Izaakia [at the moment] for the job, but would then need to get along with them as Deputy Speakers, if GI-Land would follow the USI in the speakership? Difficult.
Also this would theoretically mean, we'd need to put another amendment into the WFR1 about the Speaker election, that the former Speaker is automatically nominated for the deputy Speaker position and/or is not voted upon anymore, just so IRP and IRL are kept in line.)
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)
(OOC: Regarding the police, I think we can leave it vague as is now and assume there is a WF police.
Regarding the term length, perhaps an OOC rule could be that if a player doesn't perform their speaker duties, other players could take over specific duties, such as presiding over the different votes?)
(OOC: I'd be in agreement with that proposal. However before someone would take over those duties, they should receive the approval to do so from other WF members, e.g. by asking for permission in our world-forum-channel on Discord.)
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)
(OOC: Sounds good)
(OOC: For clarity, if and when a motion and second are made for both, I plan on bringing the GI-Landian proposal and the Esfalsan suggested changes to vote simultaneously. ICly, the GI-Landian suggestions will be voted on first, and then the Esfalsan changes, which were framed as an amendment to the GI-Landian proposal, so they would only be applicable if the GI-Landian amendments pass first. There is no established procedure for this as best as I can tell, so I'm open to suggestions about alternative procedures.)
|
![[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/esfalsagov/esfalsa-graphics/main/flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: rank_officer.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/rank_officer.min.svg){kind=icon}
![[Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/updates_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/detags_lifetime_3.min.svg){kind=small}
![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
My roleplay nations![[Image: C5xhL3j.png]](https://i.imgur.com/C5xhL3j.png)
![[Image: xpCtQTW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xpCtQTW.png)
![[Image: snqZrFA.png]](https://i.imgur.com/snqZrFA.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |