27th International Council Meeting (Circular 7) Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 oktober 2004

27 TH INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL MEETING

CIRCULAR 7

Letter from the ICM Chair
on Procedures for Resolutions

Date: 17 November 2004
Summary
Please find enclosed a letter from the ICM Chair which communicates the procedure for resolutions to
the ICM.
Distribution
This is an internal circular which is being sent to all sections and coordinating structures.
Recommended Actions
Please circulate this document to all people in your section/structure who are involved in ICM
preparations.

INTERNAL (for AI Members only)

ICM 2005
MORELOS, MEXICO
13 – 20 AUGUST 2005

AI Index: ORG 50/007/2004
Distr: SC, NC
----------------------------
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
Peter Benenson House
1 Easton Street
London WC1X 0DW
United Kingdom

ICM 2005 – Circular 7
2
AI Members Only AI Index: ORG 50/007/2004
Distr: SC, NC
Word No: 1516
----------------------------
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
Peter Benenson House
1 Easton Street
London WC1X 0DW
17 November 2004 United Kingdom

Dear Friends

Introduction
As stated in Circular 1 with reference to previous ICM decisions, resolutions proposed to a Council
Meeting need to be of a strategic nature. It is therefore critical that sections consider the strategic
nature of any proposal they wish to submit. In order to determine this, the following questions are key:
· Does the proposal have broad impact on a human rights situation (beyond a single country)?
· Does it have potential for international activism?
· Could it be addressed through a broad range of techniques?
· Does it have policy implications?
If the proposal does not fit any of these criteria, sections should reconsider submitting it to the Council
and think about other ways of bringing the issue to the attention of the governing bodies of the
movement. Anyone feeling uncertain about whether or not these criteria have been satisfied can
always contact me or any other PrepCom member. PrepCom will also advise sections if it feels the
issue could be handled differently or should be dealt with outside the ICM. In the end, each section
will decide if it wishes to go ahead and put a resolution on the Council agenda.

1. Who can propose a resolution?

Resolutions can be put forward by sections and the IEC. This includes resolutions that propose
changes to the ISP. The Standing Orders for the 2005 ICM state:

5.1 Amendments to the Statute may be submitted by a section or by the International Executive
Committee. The closing date by which proposed amendments must reach the International
Secretariat is seven months before the opening of the International Council. Presentation to
the International Council must be supported in writing by at least five sections.

5.2 Resolutions may be submitted by a section or by the International Executive Committee. The
closing date by which proposed resolutions must reach the International Secretariat is seven
months before the opening of the International Council.

2. Final date for resolutions

Resolutions must be received at the IS by 15 January 2005. They can be sent by e-mail, fax or post.

3. Presentation of a resolution

PrepCom recommends that the format of the presentation of resolutions used for the 2003 ICM be
maintained. Thus the resolution begins with the text proposed for adoption by the ICM and relevant
information is added as background. There should be no preamble (the “Whereas…” clauses).
PrepCom will ensure that resolutions are presented in a consistent manner.

ICM 2005 – Circular 7
3
4. Resolutions suggesting changes to the ISP

The 2005 ICM will not consider a new Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP). But what if a section wishes to
propose amendments to the one adopted in Morelos in 2003? The whole movement made great effort
to ensure that the ISP was a complete and balanced plan, and this will influence how changes can be
made.

In order to ensure that proposed amendments are thoroughly thought through, PrepCom and the IEC
have agreed the following guidelines.

There are many reasons why a section or the IEC might want to propose an amendment to the ISP, for
example:
· Implications of work undertaken in the early part of the ISP for work to be carried out in the
later stages of the ISP.
· The emergence of an unexpected or unforeseen significant opportunity or threat to AI’s work
or capacity.
· Undesired outcomes or impacts from the ISP implementation.
· A sudden or significant loss or increase in the movement’s resources, including in its
supporters and/or income.
· A perception that the movement’s workload and/or direction is endangering quality and/or
effectiveness.

Whatever the reasoning behind a proposed amendment, it needs to be clearly set out to the movement
and will be open to discussion.

4.1 The method for proposing amendments to the ISP
To maintain the integrity of the ISP, proposed amendments should be explained in a manner and by a
process similar to that used in drafting and proposing the original ISP text. This means that the
process outlined below should be followed:

4.2 The format for proposing amendments
ISP amendments should be:
o Demonstrably grounded in the external world . For this purpose each amendment
should be accompanied by a documented PEST analysis, including answers to
questions such as:
_ How does this amendment relate to global/regional trends in human rights and
other relevant issues?
_ How does this amendment better situate AI in relation to future human rights
challenges?
o Directly linked to what this external world needs and wants from AI & to AI’s
capacity to meet this expectation . For this purpose, each amendment should be
accompanied by a documented SWOT analysis, including answers to questions such
as:
_ Is this amendment consistent with AI’s mission & core values?
_ Does this amendment better maximize opportunities for and/or minimize
threats to AI’s effectiveness?
_ What is the state of AI’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to this
issue/amendment?
_ What are the resource implications of this amendment?
_ How does it compare to the cost/benefits of its alternatives?
o Demonstrably coherent with the rest of the ISP. For this purpose, each amendment
should be accompanied by a documented analysis of what the proposed amendment
means for the ISP as a whole and of the extent to which the change fits with the rest of
the ISP.
ICM 2005 – Circular 7
4
4.3 ISP consultation prior to the ICM
Proposed amendments will be circulated well before the ICM to enable movement consultation and
allow time to analyse the implications of the proposed change prior to the ICM. This process will be
begin after the January 2005 PrepCom meeting and continue until the time of the ICM.

4.4 ISP decision-making at the ICM
Amendments should be presented as a formal resolution to the ICM and, wherever possible,
accompanied by specific IEC advice or recommendation.

Each amendment will be discussed in the relevant working party before being put to the plenary as a
resolution for decision. Where the subject of the resolution addresses ISP goals, formal amendments
to the text would be recorded and the ISP adjusted accordingly. Where the subject of the resolution
addresses bullet points in the ISP, this would be reflected in the text of a reissued ISP but would have
the status of advice to the IEC and to section/structure boards.

4.5. Who makes the ISP analysis?
This procedure is heavy and can seem impossible for some sections to complete. Sections wanting to
propose changes to the ISP and who are not able to carry out the analysis mentioned above for
whatever reason, should not abstain from submitting a resolution if it is deemed to be of critical
importance to the movement. In these cases the IEC will carry out the analysis after 15 January 2005.

5.0 Division of resolutions:
As shown above, there will be different procedures for different types of resolutions.

· Resolutions that propose changes to the goals and/or the strategic objectives of the ISP will
be dealt with in accordance with the procedure under 4 above.
· Resolutions that propose changes in the bullet points to the ISP will be treated as bullet
points were dealt with at the 2003 ICM (see the report ORG 52/001/2004 page 5). This
means that they will only be discussed in the Working Party and serve as recommendations
to the IEC.
· Any other resolution should clearly state to what goal and strategic objective it pertains. The
section proposing the resolution needs to make the case that it is not meant as a change to the
goal/objective, but a supplement that is not in contradiction to the ISP as decided upon in
2003. Then PrepCom, in cooperation with the IEC, will recommend to the ICM on how to
handle such a resolution.
· Any other proposal that is not directly linked to the ISP will be dealt with in the customary
way.

Let it be clear, that the PrepCom can attempt in advance to facilitate the ICM discussion. If a section
does not accept the PrepCom’s procedural recommendations, it will always be the ICM that decides
how to handle the resolution at the opening of the Council. The guidelines proposed are designed to
live up to the requirement of the Statute by attempting to preserve the strategic nature of the ICM, but
the ICM is the highest decision-making body within AI and can in all cases make the final decision.

Please, contact any member of the PrepCom if you have any questions on this matter.

Claus Høxbro
Chair, ICM 2005
[email protected]