WHAT WE DO

The World Embassy Desk aims at strengthening and coordinating the legal stance on the international scene of its members and to mediate, and pre-empt, disputes among them or between them and third parties.

It reminds its members that where international law establishes the legal obligations of States in their interactions with one another and in their treatment of individuals within their borders, it also gives them a tool to use to their advantage.

International law gives a frame which states willingly accept but that can only be sustained if it is respected and applied equally to all. It governs vital global interests, such as environmental protection, sustainable development, international waters, space exploration, global telecommunications, and international trade.

This underscores the importance of an international legal frameworks grounded in present realities to pave the way for a better future for current and future generations.

This is why the World Embassy Desk aspires to shift the focus back to the law and departs from the politics which have, for too long, led the current international system into a complete paralysis. International law addresses a multitude of global concerns and the World Embassy Desk offers a unique place for member states, and third parties, to respond to these concerns and develop strategies based on law.

The WED is a non-political governmental entity with a focus on International Law. States can have their own representation ‘desk’ at the WED and can ‘sit’ at a joined desk while preserving their own desk. While respecting individual states interests and strategies, the WED will only focus itself on achieving legal performance. All states are equal at the WED, regardless of the size of their population, wealth, and economic or military power. Equality and mutual respect are two of the most important values of the WED. This means, for example, that imposing illegal sanctions – outside the UN Security Council – or freezing a state’s assets will be considered as a breach of international law against which WED should act. Another example is the breach of the Geneva Conventions, which would need imminent action from other states.

The goal is not to punish any state or its leaders for a breach but to reinstate the status quo in place before the breach. The UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court will remain the world authorities who will investigate any state or individual responsibility and act at their discretion.

Having no other interests than compliance with the international laws and agreements that the states have agreed on, the WED will be in direct contact with the heads of state and their ministers to avoid bureaucracy and delayed action.

At the WED each state will present its ‘immediate availabilities’ (IA’s) to the WED, thus not to other states. These will be the means that the state will ‘bring into the game’, such as the willingness to boycott persons, companies or states in case of a breach of international law or agreement. Boycotts can be interpreted broadly including travel barriers (for individual or mass), business barriers, etcetera, for a certain time period.

States can also inform the WED about their ‘negotiable availabilities’ (NA’s) which are the means that they are willing to put to stake depending on the situation and circumstance.

In case of a breach, the WED will be the enforcement entity that will invoke the commitments of the states to the WED to enforce the breaching party to comply with its agreed-on obligations. While the UN Security Council needs to pass difficult diplomatic negotiations, the WED will act with immediate effect by prior authorisation of the states. After all, a breach will not be the subject of political and diplomatic interpretation, which states can misinterpret for the benefit of their friends, but occur as a matter of simple legal explanation of the fact. For example, sanctions on a state outside the UN Security Council can politically be interpreted as just or necessary or even the right of a sovereign state, but as a matter of fact, the lack of a UN Security Council resolution in that regard is to be considered as an illegal act and thus a breach of international agreements. The WED would thus come up with multilateral measures.