NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage - probably (IS/GD, Mild, possibly)

The United Nations,

Believing that notable articles of cultural heritage constitute a legacy for all people,

Noting the heightened risk to articles of cultural heritage during armed conflict,

Convinced that the preservation of cultural heritage for all is a goal both worthy and requiring of international action and agreement,

Equally not wishing to unduly infringe upon the sovereign territory and right to self-defence of its member nations,

Saddened by previous instances of damage to or loss of cultural heritage in conflicts,

Determined to prevent such acts from being repeated:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this Convention, "cultural heritage" as:
- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic or historical significance;
- areas and buildings primarily used for the storage and display of such items, such as galleries, libraries and museums;
- sites officially recognised as being used solely for archaeological excavation;
- any other articles agreed on by parties to the armed conflict as protected cultural property, or designated as such in international law;

2. Declares that this Convention shall be considered to apply in times of armed conflict, which shall include:
- formally declared war between two or more parties;
- civil war recognised as such by both internal and external parties;
- armed insurrection or civil disturbance leading to a declaration of a state of emergency;

3. Requires member nations to take all reasonable steps to refrain from and prevent:
- the deliberate and targetted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;
- the desecration, vandalism, theft or taking as reparations of cultural heritage;
- the use of sites of cultural heritage for any military purposes, excepting the treatment of casualties;

4. Condemns all acts in contravention of this Convention, further condemns all acts prejudicial to the preservation of cultural heritage, and calls upon all member nations to investigate, try, and where found guilty punish those involved in such acts.

This is just an idea, and I have rather too many other proposals on the go at the moment anyway, but what do people think of something like this? Obviously, it's a hack and slash of the Fourth Hague Convention. Would it work in NS?

I would welcome the loophole-hunters on this one.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

We've never been much for digging out loopholes, but we dearly love picking nits. In that light....

The definition might cause some problems. One thing that struck us was the need to protect buildings, such as museums, which might not have items of individually "great" cultural value, but which might be significant in the aggregate.

We also have some hesitation about requiring nations, in Clause 3, to "prevent" destruction/damage/etc. We would certainly accept the duty to refrain from doing so, but this would seem to require us to prevent others from doing so, even if we were not a party to the conflict.

Finally, Clause 5 seems to be out of joint with the rest of the proposal. It's a good idea, but it seems out of place here.

Overall, we consider this an excellent idea and look forward to supporting it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We see this as a loophole...

- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic, historical or religious significance;One nations outhouse is a place of worship and another outhouse.. So who decides what has great cultural value here?
- areas and buildings primarily used for the storage and display of such items, such as galleries, libraries and museums;So we can pack in our portable nukes besides the remains of Her Royal Hynass and you can't level the building because she rests in it..
- places of worship or religious significance;Again if they use them to hide in or store weapons we turn the temple into a graveyard. Also if the war or conflict is over religion then one side don't think the other sides structures are important like their religion isn't.. So who says whos is?
- sites officially recognised as being used solely for archaeological excavation;So I need a place to bunker my SS77 Nuke Missles and find a nice place where folks have at sometime found bones of the Fatass Pig which existed 6000 years ago.. We start excavation and in the areas we clear we sercure our missles.. To be fired on you..
- any other articles agreed on by parties to the armed conflict as protected cultural property, or designated as such in international law;Since don't know of any international laws that designate anything in my nation as PCP.. would never agree with another nation to this.. as if we can't agree not to fight why should be agree on what we kill or destroy?

Also the UN has not military force to send in and keep the peace so they will have not power to enforce this if it does get passed and somebody elects to violate it. As who is checking on who here to see they comply with all or just any part of it..?

We really do wish people would read the whole proposal and try to understand it before posting long, tedious objections.

3. Requires member nations to refrain from and prevent:
***
- the use of sites of cultural heritage for any military purposes, excepting the treatment of casualties;

So much for the business about the portable nukes and the SS77s.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I fervently support this proposal.

Benedictions,

The definition might cause some problems. One thing that struck us was the need to protect buildings, such as museums, which might not have items of individually "great" cultural value, but which might be significant in the aggregate.
I'm not sure of your point here...are you saying the proposal should but doesn't, or shouldn't but does, protect these?

We also have some hesitation about requiring nations, in Clause 3, to "prevent" destruction/damage/etc. We would certainly accept the duty to refrain from doing so, but this would seem to require us to prevent others from doing so, even if we were not a party to the conflict.
Agreed...perhaps "take reasonable steps to prevent" would be better, or should the word simply be removed?

Finally, Clause 5 seems to be out of joint with the rest of the proposal. It's a good idea, but it seems out of place here.
We will consider this, although for now we'd rather include it.

OOC: At the moment it's my main justification for putting it in this category.

--snip--
Try reading the whole proposal.

Nonetheles...
So much for the business about the portable nukes and the SS77s.
Only insofar as UN nations are concerned. Non-UN nations could employ such tactics - and not being able to strike such targets would then severely disadvantage UN nations. How to resolve this problem?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Security Advisor

Only insofar as UN nations are concerned. Non-UN nations could employ such tactics - and not being able to strike such targets would then severely disadvantage UN nations. How to resolve this problem?

Nuke all non-member states immediately?

Just a thought...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Only insofar as UN nations are concerned. Non-UN nations could employ such tactics - and not being able to strike such targets would then severely disadvantage UN nations. How to resolve this problem?

Make this proposal a treaty, to which all UN members are automatically signatory but that non-members can choose to join, and have it only protect sites in signatory nations? (If that's legal...)

Only insofar as UN nations are concerned. Non-UN nations could employ such tactics - and not being able to strike such targets would then severely disadvantage UN nations. How to resolve this problem?
Two ideas:
-say something like unless they have military instalations there. In which case you can do it in non-UN nations
-Don't protect Non-UN nations

That only goes so far - non-UN forces using locations in a UN nation would still present a problem, though.

This is just an idea, and I have rather too many other proposals on the go at the moment anyway, but what do people think of something like this? Obviously, it's a hack and slash of the Fourth Hague Convention. Would it work in NS?I would need to see about possible overlaps with rights of indigenous peoples.

Edit: Nope, can't see a problem - don't even know why I thought there would be one.

So, would a reasonable exemption to clause 3 be:

"except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life"

?

We've never been much for digging out loopholes, but we dearly love picking nits. In that light....

The definition might cause some problems. One thing that struck us was the need to protect buildings, such as museums, which might not have items of individually "great" cultural value, but which might be significant in the aggregate.


Technically speaking, some of those sites might already be protected by the World Hertitage List and the Protect Historical Sites resolutions. Of course, the proposed resolution as drafted actually is a suitable alternative (actually, I consider it a marked improvement) to both of those resolutions, and I'd like to suggestion it be considered part of Cluichstan's effort to repeal those resolutions. Naturally if we should think of this as a replacement, then I'd like to second Minister Olembe's suggestion that certain buildings hold a historical significance and are worth protecting.

For example, the Gewandhaus in Miervatia City is really just the building where the Miervatia Gewandhaus Orchestra (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Miervatia_Gewandhaus_Orchestra) plays, and without the orchestra present, the building itself is not nearly as grand (it is a 1922 reconstruction of the original hall). However, even when the orchestra is not performing the concert hall is actually a focal point for tourists.

There are countless castles along the Risden River that also are of cultural significance not only to Mikitivians and Schnauzer folk, but in general to most of the Spice nations.

Howie T. Katzman

Technically speaking, some of those sites might already be protected by the World Hertitage List and the Protect Historical Sites resolutions. Of course, the proposed resolution as drafted actually is a suitable alternative (actually, I consider it a marked improvement) to both of those resolutions, and I'd like to suggestion it be considered part of Cluichstan's effort to repeal those resolutions.
The thought had crossed my mind... ;)

The thought had crossed my mind... ;)

Well, if you'd agree to seriously continue to pursue this proposal, my government's previous position supporting the World Hertitage List and Protect Historical Sites would move to supporting this new proposal *and* promoting the idea that a compliation of domestic places protected from armed conflict be drafted.

The one element absent from this proposal that the two previous documents still retain is the idea that some cultural assets are shared. Again I'll point to Mikitivian castles. Though the castles often still belong to various barons and the cantons in which they reside, with the exception of a few cantons, the castles are considered to be symbolic to the Spice nations, and most of the castles are opened to the public from any of these nations from time to time.

My point is that your proposal doesn't prohibit Mikitivity from suddenly destroying a physical landmark that does have cultural significance to the people of Keeslandia or Baranxtu. Not that this would happen, but what would happen if Mikitivity Bahn decided a faster route through the Thuvians was through Dunkleschloss (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/DunkelSchloss). A unique place would be destroyed.

Howie T. Katzman

Nuke all non-member states immediately?

Just a thought...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UNUp yours, towel-boy.

Respectfully,
Doctor Denis Leary
Hacker Ambassador to the UN

Up yours, towel-boy.

Respectfully,
Doctor Denis Leary
Hacker Ambassador to the UN

We respectfully suggest that the representative from the Most Glorious Hack dial it back.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: :p

I support such a proposal.

But you should give a precise definition of what is a "place of worship". I just would like to know what can be considered as a place of worship...

But, however, I think this proposal is a good idea and i would support it if i had to vote.

Proposal updated.

I'm starting to think about category. Does this seem a reasonable fit for Cultural Heritage?

But you should give a precise definition of what is a "place of worship". I just would like to know what can be considered as a place of worship...

I think that that's a good question, especially considering the following clause _ 1. Defines, for the purposes of this Convention, "cultural heritage" as:
- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic, historical or religious significance;

If a religion's practices routinely involve regular prayers in all of its members homes, does that mean that all of their homes are "places of worship" and cannot be destroyed? Can an entire forest (of considerable extent) be counted as "of religious significance" by a nature-worshipping group? What about a 'Holy City' or even a 'Holy Land'?
And, for that matter, is there a minimum number of involved people necessary before a belief about "religious significance" or the practice of "worship" has to be taken into account? Are any sites associated with, for example, single-member "religions" protected under this proposal? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_of_worship

<shrugs>

If a religion's practices routinely involve regular prayers in all of its members homes, does that mean that all of their homes are "places of worship" and cannot be destroyed? Can an entire forest (of considerable extent) be counted as "of religious significance" by a nature-worshipping group? What about a 'Holy City' or even a 'Holy Land'?
And, for that matter, is there a minimum number of involved people necessary before a belief about "religious significance" or the practice of "worship" has to be taken into account? Are any sites associated with, for example, single-member "religions" protected under this proposal?
Firstly, Gruenberg does in fact have a Holy City.

I'll be honest - it was primarily you I was thinking of when I asked for people to really go for loopholes on this, and you have not disappointed. However, I can't respond directly, because:
- I haven't yet received any feedback on whether the exemption is satisfactory
- anyway, you're right - it comes down to nations, and maybe some of them will abuse this resolution. But it's better than not having it at all, and besides, there's no other way to administer the system.

If the exemption seems reasonable - or could be made so - then the (admittedly important) point about homes or other buildings being used as places of worship becomes less troublesome.

to be honest, I don't think you need to mention religion at all. The vast majority of religous structures have cultural significance.

Bump.

I am considering reviving this proposal, but the problem of non-UN forces using cultural landmarks as military installations and being immune from counter-attack by UN forces has not been resolved. I also need a 30 character title.

Bump.

I am considering reviving this proposal, but the problem of non-UN forces using cultural landmarks as military installations and being immune from counter-attack by UN forces has not been resolved. I also need a 30 character title.

My government likes this proposal, and would actually encourage the addition of a clause that basically condemns nations from converting protected cultural landmarks into military installations or the practice of naming military installiations cultural landmarks. A compromise might be to add an additional classification, "cultural military landmarks" which are any cultural landmarks that are also military installations, and then to add a note that the UN recognizes that cultural military landmarks are not subjected to the protections promised under this proposed resolution.

-Katzman

Bump.

I am considering reviving this proposal, but the problem of non-UN forces using cultural landmarks as military installations and being immune from counter-attack by UN forces has not been resolved. I also need a 30 character title.

We're not clear what the "problem" is.

3. Requires member nations to refrain from and prevent:
- the deliberate and targetted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life; [Emphasis added]

As we read this clause, if a place of "cultural heritage" is being used for military purposes by a non-UN nation, it is a fair target.

On other issues... We would recommend the inclusion of the "reasonable steps" language previously offered as a possibility. And we agree with the representative of Hirota about leaving out mention of religion. If religion forms a significant part of the culture of a nation, its "cultural heritage" would automatically be covered, without need to get into haggling about places of worship and such.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC:
We're not clear what the "problem" is.
The problem is, Jolt doesn't have a blushing emoticon.

Shit. I rant on about people not reading proposals, and then don't do so on my own...I'd completely forgotten I'd added that fix, and I agree it's adequate.

IC:
On other issues... We would recommend the inclusion of the "reasonable steps" language previously offered as a possibility. And we agree with the representative of Hirota about leaving out mention of religion. If religion forms a significant part of the culture of a nation, its "cultural heritage" would automatically be covered, without need to get into haggling about places of worship and such.
I will make both such changes: I had intended to do the latter already, as I thought the point regarding it was reasonable.

I also need a 30 character title.

How about just "Protection of Cultural Heritage".

Going under the assumption that you want to say something about the "in times of war" part. Which wouldn't work with my first suggestion.

You could go simple and use "Protection of Cultural Heritage in War", but that seems to be too long. How about this: "Protecting Cultural Heritage in War"?

Even if these aren't good suggestions, they're still suggestions. I'm not thinking very clearly today.

I would like to include "in war", because I think that this is a war-time proposal is fairly central. I suppose I could just go with "Cultural Heritage in War" (for example, resolutions #51 and #111 weren't "Protect Children in War" or "Respect Civilian Rights Post War").

OOC:

The problem is, Jolt doesn't have a blushing emoticon.



OOC:

But it does have one I can use to give you a raspberry: :p

We like this proposal.

Just some thoughts which came to my mind:

- formally declared war between two or more parties;

As some wars can be "not declared" by one or more parties, maybe the case can be extended.

Also I was thinking to the destroyed "Buddhas of Bamiyan" by the former talibans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan
and the "Babri Mosque" in Ayodhya (India) destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/6/newsid_3712000/3712777.stm

So I was wondering if this proposal may be extended to non-wars situations.

Wartime Heritage Protection is 27 characters.

"You have the support of the Commonwealth. Yet another fine resolution. Well done!" The hologram raises a holographic glass of champagne, and somehow makes it appropriately clink against absolutely nothing.

Shit. I rant on about people not reading proposals, and then don't do so on my own...I'd completely forgotten I'd added that fix, and I agree it's adequate.Just tell yourself that it cures cancer.

So I was wondering if this proposal may be extended to non-wars situations.
I'm reluctant to do so. Whilst a more general resolution on protection of cultural heritage is a reasonable idea, that we would quite possibly support, at present I'd like to keep the focus of this fairly narrow, and deal with the particular exigencies presented by wartime danger.

and deal with the particular exigencies presented by wartime danger.

Why not, but I don't see, in your proposal, any particular exigencies presented by wartime danger:



3. Requires member nations to take all reasonable steps to refrain from and prevent:
- the deliberate and targetted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;
- the desecration, vandalism, theft or taking as reparations of cultural heritage;
- the use of sites of cultural heritage for any military purposes, excepting the treatment of casualties;

4. Condemns all acts in contravention of this Convention, further condemns all acts prejudicial to the preservation of cultural heritage, and calls upon all member nations to investigate, try, and where found guilty punish those involved in such acts.

We like this proposal.

Just some thoughts which came to my mind:



As some wars can be "not declared" by one or more parties, maybe the case can be extended.

Also I was thinking to the destroyed "Buddhas of Bamiyan" by the former talibans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan
and the "Babri Mosque" in Ayodhya (India) destroyed by Hindu activists in a riot on December 6, 1992:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/6/newsid_3712000/3712777.stm

So I was wondering if this proposal may be extended to non-wars situations.

Because those examples are internal matters, not international ones. Man, I'm so stoned that I'm practically orbiting Neptune, and even I figured that out.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bni Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Because those examples are internal matters, not international ones. Man, I'm so stoned that I'm practically orbiting Neptune, and even I figured that out.


They are international matters, as the culturage heritage of a population may be located partly in another nation.

The exemple of "Babri Mosque" in Ayodhya (India), is a relevant example as many riots and mobs where conducted by muslims against hindus in bangladesh to react to the destruction of the "Babri Mosque" by Hindu activists. And tension arise again every few years in bangladesh, related to this not "internal " event.

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/chronology.asp?groupId=77102

Without justifying Crusades, they have also their origin in a similarstory.

They are international matters, as the culturage heritage of a population may located partly in another nation.

The exemple of "Babri Mosque" in Ayodhya (India), is a relevant example as many riots and mobs where conducted by muslims against hindus in bangladesh to react to the destruction of the "Babri Mosque" by Hindu activists. And tension arise again every few years in balgladesh related to this not "internal " event.

http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/chronology.asp?groupId=77102

Without justifying Crusades, they have also thier origin in a similarstory.


The (RL, by the way) acts you cited as examples were committed by people in their own country, on their own soil. None of the UN's business, man.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Do please bear in mind this proposal covers solely internal civil war and insurrection.

Still, I'm not sure how to accommodate your suggestions, L&E, without throwing open the proposal to much wider problems.

What if a hypothetical nation’s executive bypassed its legislature’s sole power to declare war by simply naming an event a “conflict”? (OOC: no prizes for guessing where this is based upon.)

Surely in such an instance this resolution will be rendered null and void simply because there has been no formal declaration, simply because of semantics? An invading nation would then be committing all the acts of war but not have to adhere to this resolution, wouldn’t they? It would allow the complete destruction of nation’s heritage based on a word… or there lack of.

Should there be a war etiquette or war powers resolution (we haven’t finished reading the texts yet) that requires a declaration of war prior to major military intervention then we are more than willing to admit that we’re wrong but at present it seems like a very large loophole.

(OOC: I was going to raise a “hypothetical” NS Vietnam last night but was ultimately too tired and not sure if it was so obvious because it couldn’t happen. Love and esterel reminded me to question semantics.)

edit: Do please bear in mind this proposal covers solely internal civil war and insurrection.

Oh dear, please do ignore our questions then... from the wording of the document and the prospective titles it seemed to include international incidents to us.:)

(OOC: no prizes for guessing where this is based upon.)
No. But really, I'd rather we didn't have to get into that, because it's not relevant here.

IC:Surely in such an instance this resolution will be rendered null and void simply because there has been no formal declaration, simply because of semantics? An invading nation would then be committing all the acts of war but not have to adhere to this resolution, wouldn’t they? It would allow the complete destruction of nation’s heritage based on a word… or there lack of.

Should there be a war etiquette or war powers resolution (we haven’t finished reading the texts yet) that requires a declaration of war prior to major military intervention then we are more than willing to admit that we’re wrong but at present it seems like a very large loophole.
I partially agree with you, inasmuch as the UN has never defined what constitutes formal war very well. So I may change it to "military conflict" or similar, to further cover events where there is no declaration of war, but clearly fighting going on.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Oh dear, please do ignore our questions then... from the wording of the document and the prospective titles it seemed to include international incidents to us.
That's not quite what I meant...the "solely" applied to the civil war, not to the resolution i.e. it covers wars that are solely internal. It also covers wars that are not solely internal. That was a faulty use of expression on my part.

Still, I'm not sure how to accommodate your suggestions, L&E, without throwing open the proposal to much wider problems.

Thanks for your answer, but I just don't see in which clause is the problem to accommodate that way, I will try to read again your proposal.Thanks if you can help me also.
Maybe just clause 2 may be extended.

We understand and respect the concern of the honorable representative of Love and esterel, but we could not support widening the scope of the proposal beyond its present limits.

In our time in the NSUN, we have seen too many cases of otherwise fine proposals torpedoed because they tried to do too much at once. We believe that proposals should stick to doing one thing and doing it well. Broadening the scope of this proposal would, we believe, simply introduce problems and grounds for objection that could be fatal to its chances of passage.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The (RL, by the way) acts you cited as examples were committed by people in their own country, on their own soil. None of the UN's business, man.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It seems to me that cultural heritage, and in particular religious one, transcend boundaries.
Jerusalem, Mecca, Varanasi and so many more.

We understand and respect the concern of the honorable representative of Love and esterel, but we could not support widening the scope of the proposal beyond its present limits.

In our time in the NSUN, we have seen too many cases of otherwise fine proposals torpedoed because they tried to do too much at once. We believe that proposals should stick to doing one thing and doing it well. Broadening the scope of this proposal would, we believe, simply introduce problems and grounds for objection that could be fatal to its chances of passage.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We understand your analys, and I suppose this analasys may apply to some of our last failed legislation effort.
That after some quick researches on the UN timeline, I think that this proposal could be a good start to replace the 2 following ones, as it may be a sort a duplication, not sure about that:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=14
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=36|

Nope. Not duplication. Also, bump.

IC in OOC phrasing to save time :) (If anyone understands that then explain it to me will ya? ;))

Excruciatia would of course vote against it. A strike against any site like that would have huge a psychological impact on the enemy. For example: say Excruciatia went to war against the real life USA, then the Statue of Liberty, Liberty Bell Center & Independence Hall would be prime targets (OOC DISCLAIMER: This isn't to suggest to any terrorist wacko to get ideas about going after them, just being hypothetical here.)

This proposal has now been submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=cultural).

This proposal has now been submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=cultural).

OOC: Excellent! You might wanna see my post on DEFCON... ;)