NationStates Jolt Archive

Re: UN Resolution: It is proposed that a World Heritage List be established. All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.

The Most Sovereign Republic of Mikes Will applauds altruistic measures and programs designed to protect the Global Environment which in course affects all Nation States. It is with great pleasure and the voice of Our citizenry that The Republic of Mikes Hope resolutely and openly determines to protect said internal sites of environmental significance.

However, The Republic of Mikes Will has no alternate but to vote against the pending UN Resolution – World Heritage List based upon Our Sovereign responsibility and right to rule and protect Our citizenry.

The World Heritage List UN Resolution undermines the sovereignty of The Republic of Mikes Hope in than any one Nation, of the over 27,000 UN Member Nations, may list any and all of Our territory as a site of environmental significance, based upon the undefined criteria of “logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.”

Although these terms may have an altruistic meaning understood by the majority of Nations, the fact remains that any UN Member Nation could use this ambiguous resolution to the detriment of another.

I completely agree.

As stated in my simultaneously created thread, this would allow me to unilaterally declare all mines in the world outside my border to be Environmental Heritage Sites, thus creating a monopoly on uranium.

This is a bad resolution, no matter how well-intentioned.

New Clarkhall opposes this resolution on precisely the same grounds as stated by United Saxon States.

Furthermore, there is already a UN resolution which protect historical sites. The only new areas covered this new resolution, would be environmentally sensitive areas. The wording of this resolution is fundamentally flawed in that it does not have a set mechanism for determining what and where these environmentally sensitive areas are. Simply allowing any nation to point to a mining region and declare it a sensitive area is nonsensical.

The Community of Gurthark is sadly compelled to agree. This is a well-meaning resolution, and with a few modifications could be an excellent one. However, as currently, written, the potential for abuse is *huge*.

If (as we hope) this resolution is defeated, and the proposer wishes to submit an amended one, we would happily support it so long as it did not allow heritage sites to be declared by one nation within another nation's borders, or at the least provided a reasonable mechanism of appeal.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Hear! Hear! I will not allow other nations to impose their will on our Sovreignty. A no vote from the good people of Ellbownia.

As already described in the other thread, Esamopia will declare the entire world and any region under UN soverignty an area under environmental protection... please reject this resolution so we wont have to stoop down to such "silliness."

Esamopia!

Allowing other nations to determin whether or not something within YOUR borders is of 'heritage' signifigance to that other nation, therefor restricting usage of that land.. which could be anything of strategic importance should NOT be allowed. This is more of a Communist Military driven resolution.

It's of no importance to international affairs.

I encourage all nations of sound leadership to vote AGAINST this resolution for the sake of world security.

He, The Most Equal Citizen of Erehwon Forest, lets it be known that He agrees completely with what is mentioned above as the failing point of the resolution currently at vote. He, TMECoEF, also announces that voting FOR this resolution will cause Erehwon Forest to immediately withdraw all foreign aid from those nationstates.

(Because, let's face it, only the leaders of poor hippie-commie-3rd world countries that desperately need foreign aid will vote FOR this resolution.)

If the wording were changed to only apply to the land within your own nation, this would be one of the easiest proposals to accept.

But, seeing as how it was for god only knows what reason worded to include a nation declaring lands OUTSIDE their own borders as part of this listing, well, that's just ludacris.

The Federation of Owning States stand against this resolution.

This resolution is written with extremely poor language. The consequence of the language whether intentional or not, is that another nation can declare a portion of my nation a world heritage. It would then be protected, regardless of what my government wants. This resolution violates national sovreignty. I will vote against it.

The Dominion of Eredron likewise opposes this resolution.

This resolution does what, exactly? As far as I can see, it just gives countries the ability to designate areas as national parks. Don't we already have that? They're just calling them by a different name, and, for some reason, giving us the ability to found national parks in OTHER COUNTRIES. Why?

For the reasons already ably stated, the Consitutional Monarchy of Sugar Bear also opposes the adoption of this UN Resolution.

Sugar Bear of the
Constitutional Monarchy of Sugar Bear and
UN Delegate, Shadowland Region

if everybody is against it wy is the for side winning? i swear if i got a proposal to ban life on table it would be accepted likity split.

i got dibs on declaring all of the world except me enviromentaly protected place.

The People of the Republic of Palania also stand firmly in opposition to this resolution because of its ambiguity. Loopholes can be deadly.

my 'world heritage protected' navy is going to some landscapping on the rest of the protected areas. Then i will declare the waste lands a world heritage sight to um... remind people that... guns are bad. and prevent any cleanup attempts

This charter could have some good come out of it but as currently worded it would have great negative impact across all member nations.

The authors need to either withdraw or revise this document, failure to do so could lead to catastrophic economical and political issues.

It would not suprise me if nations withdraw from the U.N. due to the impact it will have on their economies.

I agree with those that have spoken for self-determination. The Fiefdom of Squintyville must be able to determine what should be protected within it's own walls.

On behalf of Squintyville, I vote Nay!

We vote against this resolution for all the reasons stated above. Yet another poorly written resolution brought up for a vote by the delegates. I'm glad to see that our delegate finally voted against it.

I am against it. I hope everyone else is too.

Luindor has voted against this resolution for the reasons stated above. Yes, we care for our environment, but as said, this resolution gives a nation too much power over every other nation in the UN.

The Kingdom of Luindor

Why is everyone acting surprised over this proposal? I am new here and figured out rather quickly the NS-UN is not concerned with national sovereignty. I took a quick look at what resolutions have been passed since its inception. Here are a couple of examples I found:

- Education for All: Promises a free education for every child under 16.
- Citizen Rule Recognized: “. . . resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizens on some level.

And, when looking at current proposals, you see nothing has changed. Here are a couple of examples of those:

- Rights of Labor Unions: “All nations must recognize . . .” workers unions.
- Ban Multi-national Corporations: “. . . illegal under international law for such a body to exist . . .”

Looking at these examples it is clear (to me anyway) the NS-UN has always operated like the real UN wishes it could. They would love to be able to impose their will on folks like this. I understand your disdain for this resolution, but you shouldn’t be surprised it has been proposed and is probably going to be approved.

I write in response to the UN proposal currently at vote and the critisism leveled at it in this forum. I hope that by outlining several points my intentions will become clear and fears about the use of the word 'globally' will be dispelled.

Initially, when writing the proposal I was aware of the most important factor in getting initial approval for a motion. Regional delegates have precious little time to devote to analysing motions, thus mine had to be concise with a clear intention to stand a chance of receiving initial approval. For this reason alone I did not elaborate on selection criteria, appeals processes or bodies resposible for site evaluation.

Certainly, I modelled the proposal on UNESCOs WHC criteria for site identification and selection. To this end, nations can identify internal sites and volunteer these for listing. This measure does not seem to draw critisism within this forum. The element that does is the inclusion of the term 'globally'. I included this, hesitantly, to simulate the role that NGOs play in the selection process for many sites globally. As most of you are probably aware, it is VERY rare for real nations to volunteer sites for listing, with the exception of those seeking tourism revenue such an exercise guarantees. More often, global organisations such as Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the like put forward the submission and pressure governments to list sites. Developing nations often submit to such pressure to avoid the negative publicity that such global organisations can generate.

Within the limitations of a game such as nationstates, I believe the motion as outlined simulates this real world process. Stating that sites of 'environmental significance' are to be protected is intended to exclude such things as mine sites, military bases, farm land and such - these areas are already ecologically degraded and as such would not be eligible for listing. The interpretation would extend only to sites in a pristine state.

Lastly, to touch on another reality of the game, it should be noted that if the proposal does pass it will have little effect on the actual mechanics of the virtual nations. Realistically, passing the resolution would have an effect comparable to a real nation listing a national park or wilderness, simulating the loss of woodchipping resources that such action would cause. Allowing other nations to propose sites simply simulates the role of NGOs, thus enhancing the roleplay - not allowing any nation to list military basses and thus "reduce military capability" or any other element of national sovereignty. Besides, possessing such a capability is no different to simulating the role of NGOs, in that both are imaginary, non-existant elements of nationstates. Sovereinty cannot be undermined by anyone except those who know your password, thus you should not fear it.

Knowing that I will likely cop several rebuttals, I will check back regularly and will endeavour to respond to statements or queries from you all. My computer is not in the best of health and I am in the middle of my final assessment for my honours degree though, so this may be a haphazard process.

Cheers

Since many UN Nations do not vote or pay that much attention to the wording of UN resolutions, I hope that everyone will post an explanation of this flawed legislation to their region's Civil Headquarters Board, or we may find that this well intentioned, but potentially dangerous resolution may very well pass. Check the ballots so far. We are seriously running behind, my friends.

Sugar Bear
Heriditary ruler of the
Constitutional Monarchy of Sugar Bear and
UN Delegate of the Sadowland Region

My apologies, because I voted for this horrendous act. Having reread it, my vote has changed to AGAINST.

Mr. Josephs
NEU Ambassador to the UN

I tell you what... I need wood, I go cuts me down a tree.

I need more trees, I goes and plants me some.

That's all there is to it.

What's this about having to "save the trees"? There'll ALWAYS be trees. It's what you call one of them "renewable resource" things.

Besides, this here proposal don't do nothin' to keep the world peace and it ain't got no place in the U.N.

Nuff said.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

I tell you what... I need wood, I go cuts me down a tree.

I need more trees, I goes and plants me some.

That's all there is to it.

I voted against this proposal, yes, but that logic doesn't work for me. How long does it take to cut down a tree? How long does it take to plant one and wait for it to grow? There are methods such as partial deforestation and the like that don't destroy forests, but all of those methods have prohibitive problems like "not providing enough lumber" or "destroying the environment anyway."

Besides, this here proposal don't do nothin' to keep the world peace and it ain't got no place in the U.N.

It has business in the UN if the UN says it has business there. What issue could possibly be more global than the environment itself?

It has business in the UN if the UN says it has business there. What issue could possibly be more global than the environment itself?

How 'bout preventin' world wars? That global enough for ya?

I ain't seein' how huggin' trees is gonna keep people from wantin' to take shots at each other. Makes me wanna take a few shots at 'em as it is.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

The idea is sound, but the wording of the resolution is deeply flawed. Perhaps nations should only be able to nominate areas in their own region, with the regional delegate having the power to veto any such proposals.

Re: UN Resolution: It is proposed that a World Heritage List be established. All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.

The Most Sovereign Republic of Mikes Will applauds altruistic measures and programs designed to protect the Global Environment which in course affects all Nation States. It is with great pleasure and the voice of Our citizenry that The Republic of Mikes Hope resolutely and openly determines to protect said internal sites of environmental significance.

However, The Republic of Mikes Will has no alternate but to vote against the pending UN Resolution – World Heritage List based upon Our Sovereign responsibility and right to rule and protect Our citizenry.

The World Heritage List UN Resolution undermines the sovereignty of The Republic of Mikes Hope in than any one Nation, of the over 27,000 UN Member Nations, may list any and all of Our territory as a site of environmental significance, based upon the undefined criteria of “logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.”

Although these terms may have an altruistic meaning understood by the majority of Nations, the fact remains that any UN Member Nation could use this ambiguous resolution to the detriment of another.

The Nation of Fischeronia wholeheartedly agrees. The need to protect the enviromnent is paramount, however, the need for one's own sovereignty is much more important. A more sufficient resolution may state that a country may declare an area WITHIN its own borders to be protected, but it is absolutely necessary that nations are not allowed to make this decision for other nations. Global listing shall lead to nothing but problems, angst and arguments, along with the problem of one country declaring all mines other than their own to be protected, therefore giving that nation full control over mining, logging, or any other practice.

Initially, when writing the proposal I was aware of the most important factor in getting initial approval for a motion. Regional delegates have precious little time to devote to analysing motions, thus mine had to be concise with a clear intention to stand a chance of receiving initial approval. For this reason alone I did not elaborate on selection criteria, appeals processes or bodies resposible for site evaluation.
We in Gurthark have great sympathy with this point--it is quite difficult for a proposal to reach quorum. However, this oversimplification, understandable though it was, has led to a resolution with great loopholes.

Certainly, I modelled the proposal on UNESCOs WHC criteria for site identification and selection. To this end, nations can identify internal sites and volunteer these for listing. This measure does not seem to draw critisism within this forum. The element that does is the inclusion of the term 'globally'. I included this, hesitantly, to simulate the role that NGOs play in the selection process for many sites globally. As most of you are probably aware, it is VERY rare for real nations to volunteer sites for listing, with the exception of those seeking tourism revenue such an exercise guarantees. More often, global organisations such as Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and the like put forward the submission and pressure governments to list sites. Developing nations often submit to such pressure to avoid the negative publicity that such global organisations can generate.

However, these NGOs do not have the final say. This is important. It is one thing for an organization or nation to be able to put *forth* a site as needing protection; it is quite another for that to be all that is *necessary* to protect that site.

Within the limitations of a game such as nationstates, I believe the motion as outlined simulates this real world process. Stating that sites of 'environmental significance' are to be protected is intended to exclude such things as mine sites, military bases, farm land and such - these areas are already ecologically degraded and as such would not be eligible for listing. The interpretation would extend only to sites in a pristine state.

Pristine and "of environmental significance" are not the same. Someone deliberately trying to pervert the intent of this law (and there are many such people in NationStates) could find *some* environmental significance in virtually *any* site short of ground zero for a nuclear blast.

Lastly, to touch on another reality of the game, it should be noted that if the proposal does pass it will have little effect on the actual mechanics of the virtual nations. Realistically, passing the resolution would have an effect comparable to a real nation listing a national park or wilderness, simulating the loss of woodchipping resources that such action would cause. Allowing other nations to propose sites simply simulates the role of NGOs, thus enhancing the roleplay - not allowing any nation to list military basses and thus "reduce military capability" or any other element of national sovereignty. Besides, possessing such a capability is no different to simulating the role of NGOs, in that both are imaginary, non-existant elements of nationstates. Sovereinty cannot be undermined by anyone except those who know your password, thus you should not fear it.
United Nations members are bound by U.N. resolutions.

As I said, I understand that your intention was to provide some sort of review mechanism, so that poposed sites didn't *automatically* become Heritage sites. But it doesn't, as currently worded.

As I said before, if the proposal goes down to defeat, and a new one is created that provides some reasonable appeals process or restriction on what counts as "environmentally significant," we in Gurthark will support it vigorously.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

We should probably start telegramming some of the people who voted for it to try and convince them to vote other wise.

We should probably start telegramming some of the people who voted for it to try and convince them to vote other wise.

Change your vote on the World Heritage List to "no," or our delegate will declare your entire country a "World Heritage Site" and effectively shut down your economy. YOU will have granted us this authority.

We don't have time for subtelty, do we?

The Holy Empire of Aetolia's stance and circumstances are this:
Aetolia's main industry is the Woodchips Export industry. As such, this motion would cause a nation-wide recession as hundreds of thousands of jobs are suddenly resolved.
Secondly, As devout believers of our national religion, we do state that we believe that anything the good Lord blessed our earth with is in no way about to be wiped out unless it be His will.
Thirdly, we also would like to state that the wording of said motion seems to us to be no more than the will of a certain nation to impose it's own agenda upon others, and The Holy Empire of Aetolia will not stand for this.
As such, Aetolia votes Nay to the resolution and encourages all other nations to do so as well to protect your own sovereignty.
-Lord Caspien
Arch-Cardinal of the Holy Empire of Aetolia

It is amusing to note that only the opposers are posting on this thread. :lol:

After reviewing carefully this side of the argument, and understanding the cons, this government decides that it is in agreement with this side of the issue.

The ratification of this resolution would do some negative things to the economy of various countries. For example, before my parliament currently is a petition to mine uranium at the expense of rainforests. This bill would instantly say no, however, a compromise has been reached between the two sides. This resolution would instantly shut down discussion on the topic and thus would not create the best solution. As well, as has been stated over and over again, the idea is much too subjective and can be overtly exploited.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Since everyone in this thread seems unanimous about the need for sovereignty, could you tell your delegate (that is, if you are not one yourself) to go vote for the Amendment to the Heritage proposal? It is currently languishing on Page 7 of the list of UN proposals, and is in dire need of support (89 more approvals needed!)

For your convenience, I've pasted it here with the relevant bit in bold.
----
World Heritage List Ammendment
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: Woodchipping Proposed by: New Clarkhall
Description: NOTING the introduction of the UN proposal 'World Heritage List',

FURTHER NOTING the last clause of the article which allows all UN nations to "voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally",

REALIZING that this clause is illogical as it allows any nation to declare any area in a foreign nation to be a 'World Heritage Site',

FULLY SUPPORTING the notion that sites of great environmental significance should be protected from industrial exploitation,

REQUIRES the following change to be made to the World Heritage List Resolution,

1) Each UN member nation may only submit sites within its own territory for consideration to be added onto the 'World Heritage list'

Approvals: 32

Status: Lacking Support (requires 89 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Nov 13 2003

It is amusing to note that only the opposers are posting on this thread. :lol:

After reviewing carefully this side of the argument, and understanding the cons, this government decides that it is in agreement with this side of the issue.

The ratification of this resolution would do some negative things to the economy of various countries. For example, before my parliament currently is a petition to mine uranium at the expense of rainforests. This bill would instantly say no, however, a compromise has been reached between the two sides. This resolution would instantly shut down discussion on the topic and thus would not create the best solution. As well, as has been stated over and over again, the idea is much too subjective and can be overtly exploited.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

I believe the reason for this is that people in this thread actually bother to read the resolutions and vote for sanity!

At any rate, if/when this resolution does pass, which would be a terrible moment for humanity and NS-UN, I will declare every square in/cm of the planet as a "World Heritage Zone," including Esamopia, bringing global agriculture (destruction of soil, pesticides, erosion, etc.) and global industry (for the reasons of: releasing pollutants into the atmosphere, global warming, etc.) and mining (obvious,) and streets (cars releasing pollutants,) and virtually any and all activities will come to a crashing halt!

VOTE NO and urge others to do the same!

I completely agree.

As stated in my simultaneously created thread, this would allow me to unilaterally declare all mines in the world outside my border to be Environmental Heritage Sites, thus creating a monopoly on uranium.

This is a bad resolution, no matter how well-intentioned.

I agree whole hearted!!! Its a bad Resolution!!!

I can destroy all other region by stopping all farming, logging and mining and they can then destroy our region by doing the same!!!

Please, Stop this resolution!! It will kill this game!! VOTE NO and urge others to do the same! lease tell Please tell your region to vote NO. All of the nations should vote no!!

Prez RealBigSwede founder of WWSETI region

If this resolution is passed I think it will end in a total world war!! You ask why? Because everybody that have some bad feelings to an other nation will start to declare they economy is destroying something in there nation.

Example how the resolution will destroy:
A is saying that B's mountain is declared "heritage" and B have to stop mining. B now will declare that A's farmer is destroying the soil and declare all farm land in A is "heritage". And so on!! Every Economy will be wiped out and it will be mass starvation and enormous amount of people will lose their jobs and life.

Can you not see what this resolution will end up?

VOTE NO!!!

Prez RealBigSwede

This proposal is a well intentioned death warrant to the economy of all UN members. Yet the proposal seems to have massive support. I suggest contacting other nations and persuading them to change their vote to support our unsupportive view.

The UN resolutions do not dictate that an one nation can impose rules on another nation regarding externally generated issues. The UN can say respect worker unions, but it does not say that an outside nation can determine whether or not a union is legit or not.

Tongoland has voted "NO". If this is passed, then we will leave this "UN" and carry on.

The boss

I think many nations will leave if this passes.

Prez RealBigSwede

I think many nations will leave if this passes.

Prez RealBigSwede

That may be true Swede, but the "For's" still have it. I think that wwseti needs to have a think on where we are going if this goes through, don't you?

The boss.

The Dominion of Beelze will be leaving the UN when (as it now seems inevitable) this resolution has officially been passed.

Tongoland has voted "NO". If this is passed, then we will leave this "UN" and carry on.

The boss

I think that every nation have the right to be in the UN or not. I will not demand that a nation is in or out off UN.


Prez RealBigSwede

Ah! There's my wwseti friends-glad you all found the thread.

Hopefully, we're going to the stars- :) -but, in the meantime, I suggest we stay put. Unless the UN does something absolutely awful....like actually take our sovriegnity away.

Lady Tabitha

are against this resolution based on the ease of abuse that it entails.


we are fond of our wildlife and our national forests and landmarks, but we do not wish to allow abuseable resolutions to pass.

are against this resolution based on the ease of abuse that it entails.


we are fond of our wildlife and our national forests and landmarks, but we do not wish to allow abuseable resolutions to pass.


Um... what? Did you even read the resolution? One would think you would love it, as it does not grant anyone the right to mine your country... but it does give you the right to disallow other nations to mine their own land.

Ah! There's my wwseti friends-glad you all found the thread.

Hopefully, we're going to the stars- :) -but, in the meantime, I suggest we stay put. Unless the UN does something absolutely awful....like actually take our sovriegnity away.

Lady Tabitha
Agreed. Hopefully we can affect more change from within the UN. If someone does threaten my sovreignty, even through abuse of this silly resolution, we'll simply resign our post.

.....this resolution is poorly worded. The Dictatorship of Trahey must also opppose this well-meaning proposal--at least until the language is changed as to not allow extremist environmentalists from declaring the whole world (at least those nations bound by UN regulations) off limits. That would have a devistating effect on the world economy.

My fellow members if we are allowing such poorly worded resolutions to pass what are we think. We must stop this resolution and the nuts who are writing it and others like it. i know my country is not perfect but still this would only serve to make thing harder for us all and i like others urge you to call upon your regional reps to vote aganist this and stop. if this passes i will like other leave the UN though i do not want to i will not stand by an organization where nuts run the resolutions. This is suppose to be working for the good not to devide.

Admiral Goshin Korvin
Commander of Axisknights naval forces and secretary of Foreign affairs, special assisant to the King.

*Stands up and shoots two support activist from his own country in head and marches out of forum*

My fellow members if we are allowing such poorly worded resolutions to pass what are we think. We must stop this resolution and the nuts who are writing it and others like it. i know my country is not perfect but still this would only serve to make thing harder for us all and i like others urge you to call upon your regional reps to vote aganist this and stop. if this passes i will like other leave the UN though i do not want to i will not stand by an organization where nuts run the resolutions. This is suppose to be working for the good not to devide.

Admiral Goshin Korvin
Commander of Axisknights naval forces and secretary of Foreign affairs, special assisant to the King.

*Stands up and shoots two support activist from his own country in head and marches out of forum*

Ah! There's my wwseti friends-glad you all found the thread.

Hopefully, we're going to the stars- :) -but, in the meantime, I suggest we stay put. Unless the UN does something absolutely awful....like actually take our sovriegnity away.

Lady Tabitha

Lady T.

We in Tongoland, will hold sway on leaving the UN, but as you say, if anyone tries to do anything absolutely awful, we will then leave. While we may be looking at the "Stars", our feet are on the ground.

The boss

I for one will promptly leave the UN if this resolution passes.

To leave the UN if ANY resolution passes that one does not like is a disrespect to the democratic process which it represents. If any of you truly wish to leave the UN, I shall digress. However, I do not recommend such a rash move to any nation.

if you leave your not going to do much, well you could, but then the countries that do stay in the UN will be making the decisions, yet you wouldn't have to follow them, but that wont help in the long run.

i am against the resolutrion by the way

can someone propose a repeal of a resolution if passed?

I know some people are emotional on this issue but one should not let emotions and short-term interests interfere with reason. In this day and age of global community, with ever growing populations on what may as well be, an ever shrinking planet; my back yard is your back yard. We can ill afford one country hogging rescources, destroying the world's biodiversity and putting us all in ever increasing danger of ecocide.


It is often much stated by logicians and philosophers of science that the best course of action is to leave ones options open. We can harvest these rescources at any time. We cannot replace many of these environments once they are lost. Once a species goes extinct, that is it. Sometimes we may never even knew they had existed. And I for one do not think other nations have a right to just destroy these biological treasures that belong to the entire world in such a callous way.

They ask, why? Why? The reason is for its own sake. Taking care of nature and preserving biodiversity, for our sake, other's and that of future generations, is a good in itself. It's like art, you don't need more reason to do it. And it is a good like art that reaches out deeply to the better angels of our nature. Do not let our inner demons, and those interested in archaic Victorian era values let our inner demons shout these angels down.

President Ender Phage,
The Federation of Ethical Vitalists

Also do not listen to these scare tactics concerning the resolution. This will not create a big brother government that removes all sovreignty, nor will it somehow destroy economies for the sake of preserving a few bunnies. The exact words are:

All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.


"May voluntary" is the key word here. Nobody is forced to do anything that would be too radical. It really is worded no worse then past resolutions, so in many ways such "criticisms" are red herring. Sure the entire resolution may have to be refined a bit, as all resolutions do, but it is a step in the right direction. We cannot let needless specifics paralyze us all. Such would merely be a commitment of the perfectionist fallacy.

There is an amendment to this resolution already posted and waiting on delegate approval (currently I think 79 more votes are needed to move it to the queue) that will change the wording so that a nation can only propose sites within it's own borders for the list.

Hey, Ethical Vitalists, you need to look at the facts.

1.Sure you may not be forced to do anything, but that doesn't mean nothing will happen. It isn't just you who can submit parts of your territory has heritage sites, your neighbours can too. They can thus crash your economy by declaring your resource-rich areas to be protected sites-and not necessarily to protect the environment.

2.Sure, a resolution may not be perfect, but should be still voted through. However, what if said resolution has a fatal flaw? Let's take,say, a used car you want to buy. A few scratches on the side? No big deal. However, what if the gearbox is defective? Or, in thiscase, what if the engine is missing? Some flaws are just to big to be ignored.

I respectfully direct the United World States to my previous post. It has been addressed and the amendment will almost certainly pass delegate approval and move to a full vote very soon thereby making your first arguement moot.

Hi,

This is isn't actually in reference to this current resolution, but I do find it interesting that it appears that all proposed resolutions (that have received the necessary number of endorsements) have in fact been passed by the UN.

(And now for something more on topic...) In regards to the current resolution, it states that 'All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally', certainly the keyword here is volunarily.

While a country may wish to list a site of environmental significance witin another country surely the actual sovereign nation of the area in question will be able to overturn this voluntary listing.

That's my take on the resolution. By the way that amendment is still lacking endorsements....

(Seems like a common law court system is needed to define such ambigious language)

(And now for something more on topic...) In regards to the current resolution, it states that 'All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally', certainly the keyword here is volunarily.

While a country may wish to list a site of environmental significance witin another country surely the actual sovereign nation of the area in question will be able to overturn this voluntary listing.

That's my take on the resolution. By the way that amendment is still lacking endorsements....


There's absolutely nothing ambiguous here. A UN Member can voluntarily list your entire territory as a World Heritage Site, and under the rules by which the UN in "NationStates," there's not a darned thing you can do about it. You must accept the listing.

As usual, the lack of respect for Sovereignty is appalling. And the "Let's pass it and hope it all works out for the best" attitude is just naive and insane. Why do we even have "Nations" if we're willing to give so much of our "sovereign power" to the UN?

"Borders, Language, Culture!"

Also do not listen to these scare tactics concerning the resolution. This will not create a big brother government that removes all sovreignty, nor will it somehow destroy economies for the sake of preserving a few bunnies. The exact words are:

All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally. Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities.


"May voluntary" is the key word here. Nobody is forced to do anything that would be too radical. It really is worded no worse then past resolutions, so in many ways such "criticisms" are red herring. Sure the entire resolution may have to be refined a bit, as all resolutions do, but it is a step in the right direction. We cannot let needless specifics paralyze us all. Such would merely be a commitment of the perfectionist fallacy.

You say that "Nobody is forced to do anything that would be too radical." and this is correct, but there will be someone out there who is only to happy to "voluntary" stuff everyone. This is Human nature.

The boss

The Kotlers utterly rejects this despicable trotzkyite internationalist meddling in this great nations affairs.
we must defeat this terrible threat to all sovereign nations.
Sanity must prevail.

Listed sites would be protected from logging, mining and other environmentally-damaging activities?

What prevents several countries coming together and saying that all your industries hurt the environment and should be stopped?

The whole "the amendment will pass and make it all right" is the stupidest thing ever. In everything from your job to your book report, if something sucks, it gets thrown back at you until you do it right. If the amendment is an obvious and immediate admission that the wording is a gross violation of sovereignty and land rights, then you VOTE DOWN THE PROPOSAL and then re-write another one that addresses those mistakes and concerns.

What you are doing is saying "Sure this car can't turn, but I'm pretty sure we'll have a steering wheel tacked on before we come to a curve."

But what do I care -- this insipid resolution will only make my non-UN country's mined and forested products more valuable. I'll be sure to pour out a 40 (gallon oil drum) in your memory when this thing passes.

I've convinced my UN Delegate (South Pacific Region) to change his vote to "Against." I urge everyone else to try to do the same. I'm very pleased that my delegate listens to its nations. It's the way it should be. The voice of reason should always prevail.

On behalf of the European Region, I wish to encourage all delegates and members of the United Nations to vote NO on the current World Heritage List proposal.

Like many nations throughout the world, our region is home to several strong environmentalist countries and we will always be working to support resolutions or initiatives that will improve the environment or protect sites of historical significance, provided that we can do so without disproportionate damage to personal/global economies or by overly harming national sovereignty.

Many nations in my region are particularly concerned about this proposal because it contains ambiguous wording that could potentially be interpreted as allowing countries to automatically list sites in other nations without the targeted country's approval. Many of us believe that this could lead to the World Heritage List being used as a tool in political vendettas or that such decisions might not reflect a balanced evaluation of the pros or cons of listing any particular site.

Finally, we wish to encourage delegates to evaluate and consider endorsing the resolutions that have been proposed which would amend the World Heritage List resolution to remove the offending ambiguity. Please let us know if we can be of any assistance in any future diplomatic endeavours.

I know the amendment sounds good, and just looking at the body of text it would solve the main issue surrounding this proposal. However, in actuality, isn't it only going to double the penalty against the woodchipping industry? The amendment is proposed as an environmental issue affecting the woodchipping industry. Won't this just do the same thing in the game as the original proposal?

The Federation of Cub Fans

Our most benevolent ruler has deemed this vote to be first off a "good try" but until appropriate alternatives to our Woodchip sector and Mining Sector can be made, he deems this unworthy of his consideration in passing. We must first think of protecting our people and their way of life and than focus on the land. We are going nuclear and this may prove protecting those areas a moot point should we get this reactor thing wrong.

I have been asked by the people of the Republic of Little Orange Kittens to address this body on their behalf. I respectfully request permission to do so....


It seems to us that this proposal is worded in such a way that it grants all nations power over all other nations. Therefore, it can be used as a tool of war. It violates individual nations sovriegnity-this is without question.

While we in Lok are quite supportive of efforts to preserve the forests and the rest of our environment, we are also mindful of the fact that our resources are our own to manage.

The ammendment winding its way through the process should not be at issue here.

We should vote this resolution down now and let the author-who has defended his proposal quite well-rewrite it and make the attempt again. He would certainly find our support in that case.

This ends what my people asked me to tell this body.

On a personal note....I find all these resolutions regarding the environment a bit tedious. Surely there are more issues for the UN to consider?


Lady Tabitha

1.Sure you may not be forced to do anything, but that doesn't mean nothing will happen. It isn't just you who can submit parts of your territory has heritage sites, your neighbours can too. They can thus crash your economy by declaring your resource-rich areas to be protected sites-and not necessarily to protect the environment.

2.Sure, a resolution may not be perfect, but should be still voted through. However, what if said resolution has a fatal flaw ? Let's take,say, a used car you want to buy. A few scratches on the side? No big deal. However, what if the gearbox is defective? Or, in thiscase, what if the engine is missing? Some flaws are just to big to be ignored.


Your first point is supporing things that are simply not the case. Nowhere in the amendment does it say what you are suggesting. The specifcs are not stated at all, they aren't in any UN amendment. That means the UN will decide itself, via democratic process, how this will go exactly. I doubt that it will entail a nation just putting a region of your nation on a list. Quite attacking that strawman mr. scarecrow.

Your second point is somewhat silly. Yes any ammendment, can possibly, in the absolute sense, contain some disasterous consequences....so can the decision not to accept an amendment...what's your point?

My car at any time can have engine problems, that doesn't mean I call in a dozen engineers every day to determine whether or not I got ripped. That doesn't mean I bring in a bomb expert to make sure no one planted a booby trap when buying a car. Sure all of that is "possible" but how likely? Not at all. We do check cars because we hear of people getting bad deals. We do not check cars for disasters we haven't even heard of. What you propose is so far out that it's not even worth considering. That's like not buying a car because you are afraid it may spontaniously explode. Either you have good reason for such great concern or you are excercising paranoia. I have no seen such good reason presented if it exists.

So what happen to the resulotion?

Prez RealBigSwede

We agree with the rest of the posters here. This proposal is flawed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

one thing i noticed is that there is nothing that says how a place is put on the list to protect it. It makes it seem that it just is someone says "this place is to be protected" and there you go it is. So it isn't that cool.
The only problem is that the resolution looks like it is going to pass! Big problem

If the UN is to be used by Trotzkyites to hijack the world economy they will have acomplished nothing more than end all political debate as all nations not on the extreme left will have to resign.
Furthermore they will not have acomplished even what they set out to do as all those whom are forced out of the UN will not have to comply with reselutions such as this abomonation

We must stop this infringment of soveriegnty. no one is against improving the enviroment but this is a badly written proposal and a danger as such there are no safegaurds in place to prevent abuse .
Second ths gives way to much power to a body with to many irresponsible nations who do not fully understand the consiquences of thier actions.
there is a danger that this word body that is meant to represent us all is in fact being hijacked by a few wacky WHO activists

I think a lot of people just need to calm down and stop promoting their alarmist beliefs in such a reckless manner. The resolution does not say that a nation can just put another nation on the list licket split. Sorry I looked, that is nowhere to be found. People are reading that into it. The exact details are likely to be determined by the UN, which I doubt will propose such an absurdity.

It says:

All UN nations may voluntarily list sites of environmental significance both internally and globally.

That's it. Such is open to interpretation, by the UN, and such can easily mean anything we vote it to mean. The mechanisms will hence not likely be what the majority of the UN members would fear.


Other amendments have been similarly vague without leading to any sort of disasterous consqeuence. Like the Scientific Freedom resolution, to quote:

By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.

Gee, who is to decide what is "responsible"? How will that stop rogue scientists from doing reckless expiriments?

Or the one on historical sites:

We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place. Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income. We must preserve our cultures to keep this world a fascinating place to travel in.

That is even more vague then the heritage list but has it created chaos?

So, the precedent for vague proposals was set...is that any reason to continue the practise?

Like it or not, this proposal gives me or anyone else the power to list any site I wish to-within my borders and without. This can be used in remarkable ways that I am sure the author did not intend when he crafted this proposal, but it is still a bad proposal and needs to be reworked!!!

Despite almost all countries have cut down their trees....... :wink:

What are people thinking this is very dangerous the people of Tealk are firmly against this......................................

Ethical Vitalists, You make a good point that it does not state that it happenes right away, yet it does not state that it will not.

If this goes throught and i start to see problems i will be resigning from the UN, unless there is either an admendment that makes this Resolution better or just repeals it.

ZetaOne is firmly against the Resolution as you can see.

Would everyone who is against this resolution, since there is a admendment up, would they still resing from the UN or what?
Now if everyone joins together who is against this Resolution in one region and try to push the admendment, could the region get enough votes to be a significant vote in all resolutions that come up, or being slpit up in many regions trying to convice our deligates to vote the way we want to. Even though they may not vote the way you want.
I have one of my other nations named The Colony of ZetaOne Minor in the region of Result of the WHL just because i did, go there if you think we can make a difference, if i get more then just myself there i will transfer ZetaOne there, for the UN votes of course.

Alas, this resolution seems certain to pass, at this point. We in Gurthark will take solace in the fact that none of our major industries will be affected (except in that our book publishing industry will have to rely on e-books and on paper imported from non-U.N. nations), and the fact that hopefully the resolution will be amended soon.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Well, unless we can muster up a couple of thousand votes in the next few hours we'll have the concept of environmental world war on our hands. This is actually a good proposal, but the wording allows a few environmental extremists to take over the world. A simple, "I hereby declare the entire world as a heritage area", and you have no more industry.

The proposed amendment you mention failed to garner enough votes for the 11/13 vote... and having apparently been resubmitted for an 11/16 vote, has only gotten 7 approvals, seeming to indicate it will fail to even make it to where we non-delegates get to vote. As such, the people of Beelze feel it would be foolish to rest our hopes on misspelled resolutions (it's "amendment," not "ammendment," as clarkhall spelled it) that have little to no hope of passing through.

And so, the Dominion of Beelze has resigned from the United Nations, effective immediately, as it seems clear that this governing body has a fundamental lack of respect for the sovereignty of the nations it purports to represent. In doing this, one of Beelze's greatest regrets is that it does not have the support and resources to lead a region-crashing invasion into Govie Island (Van Dieman Land's region), if only to have the satisfaction of wresting away that region's delegacy and banning Van Dieman Land from it. Yes, he'd just go on in some other region; but at least it would send a message to those who so foolishly and unthinkingly submit poorly-worded resolutions that doing so can have some consequences.



Would everyone who is against this resolution, since there is a admendment up, would they still resing from the UN or what?
Now if everyone joins together who is against this Resolution in one region and try to push the admendment, could the region get enough votes to be a significant vote in all resolutions that come up, or being slpit up in many regions trying to convice our deligates to vote the way we want to. Even though they may not vote the way you want.
I have one of my other nations named The Colony of ZetaOne Minor in the region of Result of the WHL just because i did, go there if you think we can make a difference, if i get more then just myself there i will transfer ZetaOne there, for the UN votes of course.

....when the passage is offical, I will be declaring all boarders of all countries of significant cultural value to my nations historical smuggling operations. I know it sucks for everone, but you reap what you sow. Someone please propose a repeal of this misguided resolution, and I will vote for it.

Cheers!
King Drug

....when the passage is offical, I will be declaring all boarders of all countries of significant cultural value to my nations historical smuggling operations. I know it sucks for everone, but you reap what you sow. Someone please propose a repeal of this misguided resolution, and I will vote for it.

Cheers!
King Drug

The proposal does not require that heritage sites be protected from law enforcement, only that they be protected from mining and logging. It's bad, but it's not *that* bad.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

What if the heritage site is privately owned? Is this going to interfere with the right of the property owner to do whatever he damn well pleases with it?

the Result of the WHL region can still be up if enought of us are there we can deffinatly push an admendment with enough votes, as long as people are in the UN. Since the Resolution went through sadly enough

The proposal passed although the debate on this forum was strongly against it.
The logical conclusion is that voting members neither participate in nor peruse these debates.