NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #15

Proposed by: Whistleton

Description: UN Resolution #15: Protect Historical Sites (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that culture and history should be preserved when possible,

COMMENDING the intent of Protect Historical Sites to preserve such history,

CONCERNED that the resolution provides no definition of "historical sites" or other criteria for assessing what exactly is to be protected,

OBSERVING that land is a finite resource, especially for smaller countries, and as such, there are times when new construction must take place by the razing of existing buildings,

BELIEVING that the act hinders the economic growth of developing nations unable to develop on land which may be considered "historical",

ENCOURAGING the United Nations to develop a more detailed and comprehensive replacement which shall balance the needs of culture versus the needs of economic growth,

REPEALS "Protect Historical Sites"


The Republic of Whistleton would appreciate the support of all nations in cleaning up this Act, and would welcome any commentary or suggestions from the UN body.

This seems a pretty decent argument, against a pretty terrible resolution. One thing gives me pause for thought, though:
FURTHER CONCERNED that there is no committee formed to judge the historical nature of sites to be protected under the Act,
We don't need another useless committee.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

This seems a pretty decent argument, against a pretty terrible resolution. One thing gives me pause for thought, though:

We don't need another useless committee.

~Rono Pyandran
etc.

Maybe you are correct. That would be taken up in the follow-up act, naturally. I believe we need some mechanism to judge whether a site should be protected, rather than a blanket protection of all exisiting buildings. Whether that is done by a committee or by detailed language in the act is up for discussion.

Yeah, man, what the Gruenberger dude said. Strike that clause.

Pretty good draft, though, so here, have a flower.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/coreimages/digital+art/46709_6068_by_mesh909.jpg

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

Maybe you are correct. That would be taken up in the follow-up act, naturally. I believe we need some mechanism to judge whether a site should be protected, rather than a blanket protection of all exisiting buildings. Whether that is done by a committee or by detailed language in the act is up for discussion.
I don't think it should be done by either: it should be done by the individual nations, who are bested suited to appraise the extent of protection required. Some might choose to set up committees, some to pass detailed national laws, or some to find other ways of defining the objects: but in something essentially intranational like historical monuments, I don't think the UN needs assume any burden of definition.

Of course, that line in the repeal has no force, but it might give people ideas: maybe it would be better to say that it is not clear on what criteria historical sites would be judged.

Well done. It's always amusing when there's more content in one clause of a repeal than in the entire text of the resolution it seeks to strike.

That being said, I'd remove the clause concerning committees, as my esteemed colleagues have already suggested. Frankly, we'd vote for this even with the questionable clause, but removing it might garner our active support for a telegram campaign. Eh? Eh?

Certainly a worthwhile effort and a very well-written draft. The proposal will most definitely have our delegation's support.

We concur with the suggestions of our colleagues that committees should not be mentioned in the repeal. That would simply invite the common whine: "Oh no! Not another useless committee!" We'd suggest replacing that clause with something along these lines:

FURTHER CONCERNED that the resolution provides no mechanism or criteria for assessing the historical value of sites,

We'd further suggest replacing "so-called 'Third World' nations" with "developing and disadvantaged nations" to avoid objections on the grounds of RL reference.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

FURTHER CONCERNED that the resolution provides no mechanism or criteria for assessing the historical value of sites,
Really? We disagree. In our opinion, such a set of criteria is none of the UN's business; therefore, we're actually glad that the resolution provides no such "mechanism or criteria." I'd just strike the offending clause altogether.

I take my esteemed colleagues suggestions to heart, and feel it is simply best to strike the offending clause. Any mechanism for assessing historical value can and should be addressed in any follow-up legislation.

Being a freshman to these proceedings, I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Should I simply resubmit the proposoal with the clause stricken, or wait until the current proposal expires?

Wait until the current proposal expires. You don't want to run the risk of having them both deleted.

I'd like to say that is looks really good and I wish you luck with it.

I take my esteemed colleagues suggestions to heart, and feel it is simply best to strike the offending clause. Any mechanism for assessing historical value can and should be addressed in any follow-up legislation.

Being a freshman to these proceedings, I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Should I simply resubmit the proposoal with the clause stricken, or wait until the current proposal expires?

First, you should have patience. The draft has only been posted here a few hours. Go back and edit your original post with the changes you've decided to make, adding a line explaining the edits. Then wait a few days to see if more members have comments and suggestions. Don't resubmit it.

When you've had a chance to get the benefit of whatever suggestions people care to make, post a "final" draft here. Some of us will be happy to help with final proofreading. Let people know you consider the draft finalized and intend to submit it. At that point is a good time to ask for help and advice about the process of getting the proposal approved and to a vote. Your draft has already gained the support of several very experienced NSUN members. I have a hunch there will be more to come. You need to listen very carefully to the advice you're given.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We'd further suggest replacing "so-called 'Third World' nations" with "developing and disadvantaged nations" to avoid objections on the grounds of RL reference.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs[/QUOTE]
Well said, Minister Olembe! I have always found the description 'Third World' somewhat condescending. Perhaps 'economically disadvantaged' would suffice? I have my qualms about 'developing' also, I must confess.

Benedictions,

We'd further suggest replacing "so-called 'Third World' nations" with "developing and disadvantaged nations" to avoid objections on the grounds of RL reference.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Well said, Minister Olembe! I have always found the description 'Third World' somewhat condescending. Perhaps 'economically disadvantaged' would suffice? I have my qualms about 'developing' also, I must confess.

Benedictions,

We certainly would have no objections to the replacement as suggested. We wonder, though, whether it might not be better to simply say "disadvantaged". We're wondering whether there might not be other areas of "disadvantage" beyond the economy.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

BELIEVING that the act hinders the economic development of so-called "Third World" nations which may be unable to develop on land which may be considered "historical",
Does it not hinder all nations in this way? It seems that it could hinder economic growth for all nations. Perhaps these rules place an undue hardship on areas with few resources, but I really do not know which of the two points are being made. (or perhaps I am missing the point completely)

Does it not hinder all nations in this way? It seems that it could hinder economic growth for all nations. Perhaps these rules place an undue hardship on areas with few resources, but I really do not know which of the two points are being made. (or perhaps I am missing the point completely)
Actually I think you're making a very good point. Why not just eliminate a few words and have it read:

BELIEVING that the act hinders the economic development of nations which may be unable to develop on land which may be considered "historical"

St Jello Biafra;11826605']Actually I think you're making a very good point. Why not just eliminate a few words and have it read:

BELIEVING that the act hinders the economic development of nations which may be unable to develop on land which may be considered "historical"



Well, shucks, we'd go along with that, too, although we really think that including "disadvantaged" would be better legislative strategy. We think the representatives of Khon Reight and St Jello Biafra are quite right in what they're saying, but it seems to us that an appeal to those who tend to root for the underdog might garner a few votes.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You're probably right. We'll support it either way, but including such a statement would probably increase overall support. "Disadvantaged" or "Developing" are both acceptable terms as far as we're considered.

The text of the repeal has been updated at the top of the thread.

I have removed the line about the committee.

Nonetheless, I have attempted to incorporate some text expanding upon the totally vaporous nature of the original resolution, without making it a point that the UN should be the final arbiter of what a "historical site" is. The point of those two concerns was that the original resolution really didn't spell out what was being protected, or if it was up to the individual nations to decide, leaving it totally worthless as a determiner of what exactly was being protected.

I have changed "Third World" to "developing" and reworded so that I didn't have awkward construction of "economic development by developing..." I originally placed this clause in for much of the reasons mentioned here: I think it will get a bit of the sympathy vote, without otherwise detracting from the resolution.

Wunderbar. Let us know if you need help with a TG campaign.

The original proposal expires tomorrow. I'll submit the new one after that time, unless I get further suggestions on how to improve it.

I'd appreciate help with a TG campaign. Whistleton has only been a nation since 10-10-06, and while I have attempted to quickly make our nation visible here, I am sure that we could use all the help we can get.

We get the feeling that we're talking to ourselves here, since the representative of Whistleton seems to be turning a deaf ear to our comments. But we can't understand why the representative seems bent on rushing this proposal to submission. Not everyone who may have valuable contributions to make visits this forum every day. Some may be busy with other matters. We see no reason why this draft shouldn't be allowed to gain the possible benefits of their comments and perhaps gain additional, valuable support.

This is especially true since the queue now holds five proposals. Even if this one were submitted and approved tomorrow, it would be weeks before it reached the floor for a vote.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Dude...that's exactly why I'm not trying to get our repeal of the WHL to the floor. Well, that and I'm reeeeeeaaaaally freakin' high.

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

Whistleton is not turning a deaf ear to the honorable Mr. Olembe. Now that we think about it, we just did post this yesterday. Please understand that with the heady rush of new UN membership, in addition to things going on within the Republic that other UN members would not be aware of, it does seem like a much longer time has passed. I will try to restrain my enthusiasm for a while longer and let things progress.

Excellent. We're anxious to see this proposal have the best possible chance of passage.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I thought I'd ask if anyone else has any recommendations for this proposal?