NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republic of Elbona, regional delegate for the Lafayette nation, 22 nations strong, has created a proposal about Resolution #15 "Protect Historical Sites".

This new proposal is called: Repeal "Protect Historical Sites".

I implore the member nations of the United Nations to at least read this proposal and if you are in favor to the arguments given, endorse it so that it may come to a vote before the full body of the United Nations.

-The Republic of Elbona
Regional Delegate for the Lafayette Region

It's considered good form to paste a copy of the proposal when asking here for support.

Repeal "Protect Historical Sites"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #15
Proposed by: Elbona

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

Argument: NOTING the passage of Resolution #15 “Protect Historical Sites.”

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #15 was created for the purpose of generating income from tourism, not for the sake of preserving culture and history.

OBSERVING that Historical Sites are indeed worth protecting.

WORRIED Resolution #15 is too ambiguous in the definition of what a Historical Site is. In fact, no definition at all is given.

CONVINCED that with out proper criteria for what a Historical Site is, abuse of such sites will occur dufferent contransting but equally devastating ways:

1. Sites that have no historical significance will not be demolished to make way for newer buildings leading to a overabundance of old run down buildings with no proper useage and lack ways to benefit of historical education.

2. Sites that have historical significance will be destroyed as popular opinion against named sites will lead to their demolition to make way for new buildings. The historical education such sites would provide for the benefit of future generations will be lost due to no solid means of determining what a Historical Site is or is not.

INTENDING to repeal Resolution #15 “Protect Historical Sites” and to later create a new Resolution that defines what a "Historical Site" is for the sake of protecting such sites and preventing abuse do to the lack of clear criteria for what a Historical Site is.

Approvals: 1 (Elbona)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 111 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Jun 11 2007and here is the resolution you want to repeal.Protect Historical Sites
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
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.

Votes For: 15,515
Votes Against: 4,317
Implemented: Fri May 23 2003Basically it looks like your main objection is that #15 doesn't define what a historical site is, which is fine in itself. I think you might have been able to expand on the importance of historical sites for their cultural heritage, but meh. Otherwise it seems written well enough, and I'm reassured that you intend to do a replacement.

To the Honorable Delegate from Elbonia:

I like your idea. Have you started work on the replacement?


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Not bad. Running it through a spell-checker before submitting it would have been good, but not bad.

Now, how do you propose to define a historic site?

To the Honorable Delegate from Elbonia:

I like your idea. Have you started work on the replacement?
Replacement?

Replacement?

V

INTENDING to repeal Resolution #15 “Protect Historical Sites” and to later create a new Resolution that defines what a "Historical Site" is for the sake of protecting such sites and preventing abuse do to the lack of clear criteria for what a Historical Site is.

A replacement is being drafted by a team from the region of Lafayette and will be posted here tomorrow by this time.

-Elbona

After researching some various criteria other use for Histoical Sites, the revised law will be similar, but not exactly, to this (note: this is from the United States of America's criteria, its not my creation):

1) That is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are identified with, or that outstandingly represents, the broad national patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained; or


(2) That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the history of the United States; or


(3) That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or


(4) That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or


(5) That are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or


(6 ) That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be expected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a major degree.


Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not eligible for designation. Such properties, however, will qualify if they fall within the following categories:


(1) A religious property deriving its primary national significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or


(2) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is nationally significant primarily for its architectural merit, or for association with persons or events of transcendent importance in the Nation's history and the consequential association; or


(3) A site of a building or structure no longer standing but the person or event associated with it is of transcendent importance in the Nation's history and the consequential association; or


(4) A birthplace, grave, or burial if it is of a historical figure of transcendent national significance and no other appropriate site, building or structure directly associated with the productive life of that person exists; or


(5) A cemetery that derives its primary national significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, or from an exceptionally distinctive design or from an exceptionally significant event; or


(6) A reconstructed building or ensemble of buildings of extraordinary national significance when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other buildings or structures with the same association have survived; or


(7) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own national historical significance; or


(8) A property achieving national significance within the past 50 years if it is of extraordinary national importance.

I hesitate to make a more formal proposal of my own on this matter though since the resoultion to repeal the old law currently has no where near enough support for it to a full U.N.vote. If more support is given, I will take the time to create a rough draft of what a formal proposal would look like.

-The Republic of Elbona

Well repealing Resolution 15 in and of itself is a good thing, but from looking at your argument is mainly that a historical site is not defined. I think that that argument needs to be strengthened.

Also there is the issue of National Sovereignty in regard to protecting sites/areas/regions. It is not the UN's business to tell nations how to use their resources. They can do that well enough on their own.

It is not the UN's business to tell nations how to use their resources.

It is precisely the UN's business to tell nations how to use their resources, if the UN so decides by majority vote. The national sovereignty argument is utterly pointless in repeals for this very reason.

To the Honorable Delegate from Elbonia:

I like your idea. Have you started work on the replacement?


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Don't start. Please don't start. Please.

On the issue of the repeal, I think it's okay. I'm not pledging anything yet.

It is precisely the UN's business to tell nations how to use their resources, if the UN so decides by majority vote. The national sovereignty argument is utterly pointless in repeals for this very reason.

Absolutely.

Noted.

Well in that case I will support the repeal of Res#15 as its a steaming pile. But I will not support any replacement and will debate against any such replacement.

I happen to believe that not everything that is repealed needs to be replaced, and in fact it is often better that it isnt.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy Ambassdor to the UN.

A perfectly valid opinion and I thank your suppor tfor the repeal and hope we have the chance to debate a new proposal.

-The Republic of Elbona