NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

Resolution: #15 (http://www.nationstates.net/72384/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14)


Description: UN Resolution #15 (http://www.nationstates.net/72384/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14): Protect Historical Sites (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REALISING that it is necessary to preserve history.

REGRETFULY NOTING that UN Resolution 15 does not specify what a historical site is.

FURTHER NOTING that the resolution does not specify any way to preserve historical sites, other than to prevent their demolition.

SUGGESTING that further legislation be enacted to replace Resolution 15.


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Constructive criticism?

Yeah, it's ok as a repeal, but I'm not sure it'll pass. And I'm not sure it's needed. Of the two resolutions, "World Heritage List" is the more damaging. "Protect Historical Sites" is useless, and should be cut as crap, but the GA's been historically suspicious of repealing based on redundancy (not that they haven't passed, though), and it may be better to go for that that is actively bad, rather than blandly not good.

PUT THE RESOLUTION YOU ARE REPEALING IN YOUR POST

Do you belive that everyone knows every resolution ever passed? People want to see the resolution before they agree or disagree with you.

So here it is

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: X-tonia

Description: 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.

@Newfoundcanada: Sorry, I thought the 2 links I provided were good enough.

@Gruenberg: Good idea. I'll start working on the repeal for the World Heritage List right now.

@Newfoundcanada: Sorry, I thought the 2 links I provided were good enough.
Uh...they link to page 4 of the proposals list. Not resolution 15.

@Gruenberg: Good idea. I'll start working on the repeal for the World Heritage List right now.
Excellent!

Recognising that all nations share a common global environment;

Recognising that sites of pristine environmental significance should be protected for all people; and

Recognising that a lack of environmental protection protocols currently exists:

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.

Repeal:
REALISING that it is necessary to preserve the environment.

BELIEVING that UN Resolution 37 does not handle this preservation in a satisfactory manor.

BELIEVING that for one nation to force another nation to protect an area in that other nation's boarders is a violation of national sovereignty.

REPEALING Resolution 37, and removing protections that it provides, except where other protections unrelated to UN Resolution 37 are in place.

I think you need to stress that WHL includes no arbitration measures. Spell out that one nation could list an area in another nation, without the latter having any recourse to appeal, and thereby effect economic attacks on that nation.

Spell out that one nation could list an area in another nation, without the latter having any recourse to appeal, and thereby effect economic attacks on that nation.

Not just could - they actually do.

I think you need to stress that WHL includes no arbitration measures. Spell out that one nation could list an area in another nation, without the latter having any recourse to appeal, and thereby effect economic attacks on that nation.
Agreed It needs to be put in very clearly

Other then that is pointing out that, the title and content have nothing to do wit h each other a good idea?

Which do you like better; this one:

REALISING that it is necessary to preserve the environment.

BELIEVING that UN Resolution 37 does not handle this preservation in a satisfactory manner.

NOTICING that the resolution allows for one nation to protect an area not within its borders.

NOTICING that the resolution does not allow any way for an area to be taken off of the list, no matter who put it on.

BELIEVING that for one nation to force another nation to protect an area in that other nation's borders is a violation of national sovereignty.

REPEALING Resolution 37, and removing protections that it provides, except where other protections unrelated to UN Resolution 37 are in place.



Or this one:
REALISING that it is necessary to preserve the environment.

BELIEVING that UN Resolution 37 does not handle this preservation in a satisfactory manner.

NOTICING that the resolution allows for one nation to protect an area not within its borders.

NOTICING that the resolution does not allow any way for an area to be taken off of the list, no matter who put it on.

NOTICING that the resolution may cause negative economic impacts in areas involuntarily placed on the list.

NOTICING that the resolution may be used as a form of punishment, due to these economic effects.

BELIEVING that the resolution should be repealed due to this ability for punishment.

BELIEVING that for one nation to force another nation to protect an area in that other nation's borders is a violation of national sovereignty.

REPEALING Resolution 37, and removing protections that it provides, except where other protections unrelated to UN Resolution 37 are in place.

@Gruenberg: Good idea. I'll start working on the repeal for the World Heritage List right now.

OOC: Don't waste your time. I've been working on the WHL for a few months now. Its repeal is next on my list of things to do after the UN Counterterrorism Initiative passes. ;)

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

Resolution: #15 (http://www.nationstates.net/72384/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14)


Description: UN Resolution #15 (http://www.nationstates.net/72384/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14): Protect Historical Sites (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REALISING that it is necessary to preserve history.

REGRETFULY NOTING that UN Resolution 15 does not specify what a historical site is.

FURTHER NOTING that the resolution does not specify any way to preserve historical sites, other than to prevent their demolition.

SUGGESTING that further legislation be enacted to replace Resolution 15.


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Constructive criticism?


While the government of Kuraurisand does recognize the value of preservating the cultural history of the world, we feel compelled to point out that, once Resolution 15 is repealed, the current global atmosphere of National Sovereignty would doubtless prevent any future legislation on this topic from passing. And frankly, the thought of having to leave an outhouse in the middle of a field because it existed for whatever X years the United Nations might stipulate in such a legislation is... inconvenient, to say the least.

As a point of order, we feel compelled to ask - would it not be better in cases like this to pass the more detailed resolution before repealing the vague one? Could a disgruntled member state not take advantage of the time gap between Resolution 15's repeal and the adoption of a new one to destroy The Superior Dam of Cheese while the opportunity presented itself?

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Dear Sir/Madam,

Manner. Border.

Respectfully,
Mephi, High Clawlord
And Winner of his Eighth Year Spelling Bee

Dear Sir/Madam,

Manner. Border.

Respectfully,
Mephi, High Clawlord
And Winner of his Eighth Year Spelling Bee

?

As a point of order, we feel compelled to ask - would it not be better in cases like this to pass the more detailed resolution before repealing the vague one?Because that would be illegal.

@Lycanthropa: Thanks for catching those spelling mistakes, but it usually helps to say whom you are correcting.


@Cluichstan: I have plenty of time. Beleive me, this is the best use of it right now.


@ALL: Feel free to offer constructive criticism on either repeal.

@Cluichstan: I have plenty of time. Beleive me, this is the best use of it right now.

Nah, the best use of it would be to support the UN Counterterrorism Initiative now and my repeal of the WHL (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=63) when the time comes. ;)

Okay, wow. Yours is much better. I'll just keep to working on the #15 repeal then.


Oh, and according to the list on the NSWiki, everyone who does not like the WHL list is on it.

Okay, wow. Yours is much better. I'll just keep to working on the #15 repeal then.


Oh, and according to the list on the NSWiki, everyone who does not like the WHL list is on it.

Yeah, we did that. The WHL resolution doesn't say who can and cannot add sites to the list, y'know. ;)

@Lycanthropa: Thanks for catching those spelling mistakes, but it usually helps to say whom you are correcting.

My apologies. I was in a rush to get to work and forgot to quote.

Furthermore, for some reason, my original page didn't load the corrected version of the proposal.

SO. My work here is done, and was before it started.

It's nice when things wrap up easily like that.

Well, looks like the #15 repeal is going to fall through. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to get 92 approvals by the end of the day. I could probably make a slightly different version, but there doesn't seem to be much support for it. And the WHL repeal is being handled by someone already.

Well, looks like the #15 repeal is going to fall through. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to get 92 approvals by the end of the day. I could probably make a slightly different version, but there doesn't seem to be much support for it. And the WHL repeal is being handled by someone already.
If you want to fix that send TG's to delegates asking them to support you and a link to your proposal. Doing it for this one won't be effective wait a while improve it THEN re-submit it. With the re-submitting send TG to delegates.