NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNISES that historical sites are worthy of preservation.

RECOGNISES that Resolution #15 is ambiguous as to steps to be made to preserve aforesaid historical sites.


PROPOSES that Resolution #15 be repealed. So that a new more specific resolution can be drafted to help nations follow the UN guidelines more accurately


Is this good enough? I'd also like to ask for a UN member with two endorsements to propose this, as I'm very new and haven't got any! :(

If you're going to use this argument, that's fine, but there probably needs to be some indication of what that replacement will be. Resolution #15 doesn't stop a better resolution being drafted; it just (probably) stops it being submitted. So it makes sense to do the former before submitting the repeal, though we are in favour of expunging the waste of space from the UN's books.

So I'd suggest thinking about what you do want the resolution to do (i.e. how historical sites should be preserved).

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

RECOGNISES that historical sites are a worhty cultural and educational addition.

RECOGNISES that old structures can present a danger due to a lack of structural integrity.

PROPOSES the formation of a Historical Preservation Committee.

PROPOSES that any structure over the age of 1000 years must have it's structural integrity passed by the Historical Preservation Committee. Any structure that passes their adjudication MAY NOT be destroyed.

PROPOSES that any structure over the age of 500 years must not be destroyed without review of the merits by the Historical Preservation Committee.


Good?

I suggest you post your proposals over at Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation), where you can get additional drafting help.

I suggest you post your proposals over at Reclamation (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation), where you can get additional drafting help.
And I, again, suggest you stop spamming every thread with this. They could get drafting help on Jolt, if only you'd bother offering some.

Elsu yuoo'fe-a gut zee neme-a ooff resulooshun #15 vrung, it's "Prutect Heesturicel Seeghts" nut preserfe-a. Boot es yuoor coorrent drefft oonly uses zee resulooshun's neme-a in zee teetle-a, thet meesteke-a here-a oon zee furoom vun't be-a a prublem vhee thees is soobmeetted. Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

RECOGNISES that historical sites are a worhty cultural and educational addition.

RECOGNISES that old structures can present a danger due to a lack of structural integrity.

PROPOSES the formation of a Historical Preservation Committee.

PROPOSES that any structure over the age of 1000 years must have it's structural integrity passed by the Historical Preservation Committee. Any structure that passes their adjudication MAY NOT be destroyed.

PROPOSES that any structure over the age of 500 years must not be destroyed without review of the merits by the Historical Preservation Committee.


Good?

It doesn't repeal anything. And before you simply add a clause repealing the resolution in question, doing so would make your draft proposal illegal, as repeals can't introduce new legislation.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Is it too much trouble to read the bloody rules? :rolleyes:

OOC: Is it too much trouble to read the thread? I mentioned that if replacement was to be used as an argument, a replacement would need to be drafted. Post #1 is the repeal, #3 the replacement. Nothing illegal in that.

It doesn't repeal anything. And before you simply add a clause repealing the resolution in question, doing so would make your draft proposal illegal, as repeals can't introduce new legislation.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Is it too much trouble to read the bloody rules? :rolleyes:

Please, when you post an answer to a topic, be carefull about reading it entirely. The first post is the repeal proposal, this proposal is just the new one to replace #15 as we ask for it.

Still, the OP could have taken a few seconds to add "How's this for a replacement?".

RECOGNISES that historical sites are a worhty cultural and educational addition.

RECOGNISES that old structures can present a danger due to a lack of structural integrity.

PROPOSES the formation of a Historical Preservation Committee.

PROPOSES that any structure over the age of 1000 years must have it's structural integrity passed by the Historical Preservation Committee. Any structure that passes their adjudication MAY NOT be destroyed.

PROPOSES that any structure over the age of 500 years must not be destroyed without review of the merits by the Historical Preservation Committee.


Good?

For me it's not sufficient as a replacement of #15. We must protect all historical et cultural sites. Each country must found a national committee for the preservation and the Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee of the UN could give help for the preservation and restauration. But something less than 100 years old can be as important as an archeological site that's 1000 years old.

First off I apologise for presuming people would read the thread before replying so in future I will clarify my posts to make it easier.

Disclaimer: This is a new draft of the replacement for Resolution #15. This is not repealing anything. That was done in post #1



RECOGNISES that historical sites are a worhty cultural and educational addition.

RECOGNISES that we must protect all cultural and historical sites.

RECOGNISES that old structures can present a danger due to a lack of structural integrity.

PROPOSES the formation of a Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee.

PROPOSES the mandatory formation of Historical and Cultural Preservation Committees at a national level

PROPOSES that National Historical and Cultural Committees must compile a list of those buildings which add significant cultural advantage to their nations. These buildings must be restored and may not be destroyed, except where the lack of structural integrity would make restoral impossible.

PROPOSES that any structure over the age of 1000 years must automatically be placed on this list as having significant historical value. In cases where these buildings are deemed dangerous. The review must be passed on to the UN Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee.

PROPOSES that the UN Historical and Cultural Preservation Committee give aid to national Committees in restoration and adjudication matters.


"How's this for a replacement?"

Still, the OP could have taken a few seconds to add "How's this for a replacement?".

OOC: Exactly. I read the OP's second post to be a revamping of the repeal proposal floated in his first post. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.