NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Environmental
Efects: All Bussiness:
Presenter: Akhalla
Resolution: World Historical Protection Act

URGES the protection of U.N member state historical sites from destruction by Industries, by fire, by storms, by degrdation of the structure of the land or building.

ALSO URGES U.N member states to renovate or rebuild historical sites that have been forgotten or destroyed by natural disasters. Either in the same spot or near the actual spot of the historical building or plot of land.

RECOGNIZES a historical site as any or all of the structures and places of historic, archaeological or architectural interest or importance and as our environment that has a historical dimension that contributes to its quality and character.

(1) A historical Site can also be recognized as the following;

A) A building or patch of land that is older than 50 to 100 years old, and even older, that has direct local, state or national value to the U.N member state.

B) A building or patch of land where a historical battle or historical event occurred.

C) A building or a patch of land that can capture the historical, artistic, literary, linguistic and scenic associations of lanscapes.

D) A historical site that commemorates a disaster or genocide of some nature.

(2) The creation of a voluntary World Historical Organization which gatters the top historians, as well as other academics to discuss the upkeep of World Historical Sites.

(3) The protection of World Historical Sites is a National and a U.N objective as it allows for many internal and external people enjoy member states national treasures. As these Historical sites contribute fundamentally to sense of place and cultural identity and are regarded as inextricably part of tangible aspects of the historic environment

Anyone??

We object sole for having the UN havign the mystical power to protect a structure from fires and storms. Also we object because of the cost of repairing a place should a volcano pop up under it. It takes billions of crowns to move new volcanos.

Made a few changes.

So is this an okay resolution that wouldn't offend people. I've already tried doing a resolution with the Fish Act, and it didn't work so if anyone has any suggestions that can help that would be great.

URGES the protection of U.N member state historical sites from destruction by Industries, by fire, by storms, by degrdation of the structure of the land or building.

ALSO URGES U.N member states to renovate or rebuild historical sites that have been forgotten or destroyed by natural disasters. Either in the same spot or near the actual spot of the historical building or plot of land.


We'll consider the fact that you just URGE this and then IGNORE it. As we have a hard time protecting functioning buildings from a fire or storm simply because debree from some old buildings catches fire and that spreads or the storm dumps it on top of a good one. The only way to stay ahead of nature is to build to meet her anger. As for building to meet industrial needs that we also see as a problem as buildings over so many years old don't meet safety standards and to upgrade them would cost more than putting up new ones that are already to date under safety standards as well as industrial needs.

This proposal doesn't actually mandate member nations to do anything. Which in this case is a good thing because I don't agree with the proposal I'm afraid. I don't think this is really within the UN's scope of concern, and rather a matter for national preservational bodies.

As for your definitions of what constitutes a historical building worth saving, do all of the criteria need to apply or just one? If the latter, Gwenstefani has some fairly ugly apartment blocks over 50 years old which we have no interest in preserving.

Also, surely some countires have more pressing matters to devote time and resources to other than protecting their buildings. Like protecting their people.

But as I have said, this proposal doesn't require member nations to do anything, it just asks them to think about it really. But I don't think we need such weak recommendations cluttering up the UN.

Normally I tend to rant about the strong arm nature of resolutions. This one actually needs a little more oomph into it. I would reccomend that the resolution should REQUIRE reasonable measures to prevent destruction of historial sites by "by Industries, fire, storms, or by structural degrdation of the land or building." Then it should URGE restoration when historical sites are destroyed by those effects. Finally it should RECCOMEND restoration or relocation when caused by significant acts of nature.

Category: Environmental
Efects: All Bussiness:
Presenter: Akhalla
Resolution: World Historical Protection Act

REQUIRES the protection of U.N member state historical sites from destruction by Industries, by fire, by storms, by degrdation of the structure of the land or building.

URGES U.N member states to renovate or rebuild historical sites that have been forgotten or destroyed by natural disasters.

RECOMMENDS that historical sites be rebuilt on the same spot or near the actual spot of the historical building or plot of land.

RECOGNIZES a historical site as any or all of the structures and places of historic, archaeological or architectural interest or importance and as our environment that has a historical dimension that contributes to its quality and character.

(1) A historical Site can also be recognized as the following;

A) A building or patch of land that is older than 50 to 100 years old, and even older, that has direct local, state or national value to the U.N member state.

B) A building or patch of land where a historical battle or historical event occurred.

C) A building or a patch of land that can capture the historical, artistic, literary, linguistic and scenic associations of lanscapes.

D) A historical site that commemorates a disaster or genocide of some nature.

(2) The creation of a voluntary World Historical Organization which gatters the top historians, as well as other academics to discuss the upkeep of World Historical Sites.

(3) The protection of World Historical Sites is a National and a U.N objective as it allows for many internal and external people enjoy member states national treasures. As these Historical sites contribute fundamentally to sense of place and cultural identity and are regarded as inextricably part of tangible aspects of the historic environment

----------

To Gwenstefani

It is for a building that has value at the local or state or national level. So if it was a house or train station that was built like 100 years ago, then it should be preserved as a Historical Site.

To Zeldon 6229 Nodlez:

This is for historical buildings that are already mandated to be protected under Resolution 15 I believe. This is setting up an act to have guidelines for an historical building and protect it from damages that may be caused by industries trying to bulldoze it, and from natural disasters

To Gwenstefani

It is for a building that has value at the local or state or national level. So if it was a house or train station that was built like 100 years ago, then it should be preserved as a Historical Site.


All houses over 100 years old must be preserved? That is ridiculous. There would never be room for the new. And why should something be preserved just because it is old? Surely it should only be special buildings that are preserved?

Even then, why should the UN mandate that these buildings be protected? Is it fundamental to human life? Does the destruction of buildings in one country affect the people or the environment of that or other countries? Are these buildings a global common, something that cannot be owned by one particular nation state? No. And so this is not the UN's concern.

If I decide to demolish a 200 year old prison in my country to make way, say, for 100 low cost homes, surely that is a good thing? And much better than preserving an old prison purely because it is old.

So you would be willing to destroy national historical sites in direct violation of resolution 15 I believe.

It is for a building that has value at the local or state or national level


So if a building for example a train station has sentimental value at the local, state and national levels it should be protected as A historical site.

What if the building is a danger to the public in it's heritage state? You mentioned train stations - first and foremost comes the safety of the commuters, if 100 year old styled end bumpers were insufficient to stop a modern Randomean train at a terminus we would not hesitate to put in modern ones.
Moreover you get ridiculous cases such as fining a householder for having a pvc door because she cannot open a wooden one due to disabilities.

However, I believe that with a complete change of focus you could come out with a good proposal.

Leave things like listed buildings to something along the lines of 'Recommending nations appoint a heritage comittee to assess private buildings and protect them from destruction or unnecessary changes if judged to be of cultural importance.'

Now this is the important bit: make it an international issue.
'How?' you might ask. By mandating the preservation and upkeep of sites of international importance, such as war graves, battlefields etc.
Of course adding that they may ask for financial assistance from relevant charities and the other nations concerned.
Then you can mandate such sites can be accessed by tourists/veterans in peace time.

Now that the international part is well and truly established, you can move onto the national. It's probably best that you restrict it to an 'urges', that is you urge that the protection and care shown to places of international importance is stretched to cover other places of National significance and heritage, and to areas of natural beauty.

You catching my drift?

Category: Environmental
Efects: All Bussiness:
Presenter: Akhalla
Resolution: World Historical Protection Act

URGES the protection of U.N member state historical sites from destruction by Industries, by fire, by storms, by degrdation of the structure of the land or building.

ALSO URGES U.N member states to renovate or rebuild historical sites that have been forgotten or destroyed by natural disasters. Either in the same spot or near the actual spot of the historical building or plot of land.

RECOGNIZES a historical site as any or all of the structures and places of historic, archaeological or architectural interest or importance and as our environment that has a historical dimension that contributes to its quality and character.

(1) RECOMMENDS that U.N member states appoint a national heritage comittee to assess private buildings and protect them from destruction or unnecessary changes if judged to be of cultural importance.'

This can include the following quidelines:

A) A building or patch of land that is older than 50 to 100 years old, and even older, that has direct local, state or national value to the U.N member state.

B) A building or patch of land where a historical battle or historical event occurred.

C) A building or a patch of land that can capture the historical, artistic, literary, linguistic and scenic associations of lanscapes.

D) A historical site that commemorates a disaster or genocide of some nature.

(2) MANDATING the preservation and upkeep of sites of international importance, such as war graves, battlefields, etc. This can be completed by asking for assistance from relevant charities, organizations and nations concerned that can commerorate veterans of conflict and from internal and external tourists during peacetime.

(3)The creation of a voluntary World Historical Organization which gatters the top historians, as well as other academics to discuss the upkeep of World Historical Sites.

(4) URGES the protection of World Historical Sites is a National and a U.N objective as it allows for many internal and external people enjoy member states national treasures. As these Historical sites contribute fundamentally to sense of place and cultural identity and are regarded as inextricably part of tangible aspects of the historic environment of these U.N member states.

Have made more changes.

This one is a much better draft due to its limits in interferance of local politics. And it would add local jobs as well if the heritage committee was added to the government payroll.

The national heritage committees would be government sponsored if they want to be or independent.

And the World Historical Organization would be for international historical sites and such.