Badgersprite
22-01-2006, 04:33
Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15
Proposed by: Badgersprite
Description: UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: NOTING the noble intentions behind passing UN resolution #15, it contains insufficient information in its wording and in the reasoning behind it to be a UN resolution and for it to be successfully enforced. In the three sentences of the resolution, it lacks:
-- A detailed definition of what a 'Historical Site' worthy of protection is or how a place or location could be granted this status. As such, many cultural and historical hotspots could be destroyed by member nations of the UN without being in violation of this resolution. Also, communities and people could easily interpret this resolution for their own purposes and claim land from other civilians by claiming it is a Historical Site and take the land for their own purposes, promoting no more than blatant corruption.
-- Defined methods of how the resolution could be enforced in member states or who it should be handled by. It contains no definition of what 'protection' of these sites involves. This and from whom it should be protected. Mentions of tourism in the resolution claim that by protecting Historical Sites, nations will get more tourism. However, as evidenced in many popular tourist sites globally, the promotion of tourism is often detrimental to the environment and these 'protected' sites. Therefore, tourism should be banned from these sites in order to protect them. This is a conflict of interest.
-- It takes the power of choice out of democratic nations and is a blatant attempt for simple ideology to interfere in the running of nations without taking into account the rights of the people, the potential for this law to be manipulated or the differing viewpoints of various people and has done so without an informed, reasonable argument for the cause.
-- Fair, unbiased and proven information and reasons as to why these Historical Sites need to be protected. The resolution claims that tourism would drop and affect the economies of nations negatively, but, by replacing the Historical Sites with new buildings, many more job opportunities could be created. Arguably, even far better jobs that would contribute a great deal more to the economy and the betterment of the community as a whole.
-- An explanation of how keeping Historical Sites protected, not preserved or maintained or even studied, results in the safety of our cultures.
-- As mentioned above, no definition of what protecting these Historical Sites would involve or encompass.
It is the firm belief of this member nation that the current resolution to Protect Historical Sites is simply nowhere near the standard it needs to be in order to achieve the cause it seems to be trying for.
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15
Proposed by: Badgersprite
Description: UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: NOTING the noble intentions behind passing UN resolution #15, it contains insufficient information in its wording and in the reasoning behind it to be a UN resolution and for it to be successfully enforced. In the three sentences of the resolution, it lacks:
-- A detailed definition of what a 'Historical Site' worthy of protection is or how a place or location could be granted this status. As such, many cultural and historical hotspots could be destroyed by member nations of the UN without being in violation of this resolution. Also, communities and people could easily interpret this resolution for their own purposes and claim land from other civilians by claiming it is a Historical Site and take the land for their own purposes, promoting no more than blatant corruption.
-- Defined methods of how the resolution could be enforced in member states or who it should be handled by. It contains no definition of what 'protection' of these sites involves. This and from whom it should be protected. Mentions of tourism in the resolution claim that by protecting Historical Sites, nations will get more tourism. However, as evidenced in many popular tourist sites globally, the promotion of tourism is often detrimental to the environment and these 'protected' sites. Therefore, tourism should be banned from these sites in order to protect them. This is a conflict of interest.
-- It takes the power of choice out of democratic nations and is a blatant attempt for simple ideology to interfere in the running of nations without taking into account the rights of the people, the potential for this law to be manipulated or the differing viewpoints of various people and has done so without an informed, reasonable argument for the cause.
-- Fair, unbiased and proven information and reasons as to why these Historical Sites need to be protected. The resolution claims that tourism would drop and affect the economies of nations negatively, but, by replacing the Historical Sites with new buildings, many more job opportunities could be created. Arguably, even far better jobs that would contribute a great deal more to the economy and the betterment of the community as a whole.
-- An explanation of how keeping Historical Sites protected, not preserved or maintained or even studied, results in the safety of our cultures.
-- As mentioned above, no definition of what protecting these Historical Sites would involve or encompass.
It is the firm belief of this member nation that the current resolution to Protect Historical Sites is simply nowhere near the standard it needs to be in order to achieve the cause it seems to be trying for.