NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been working on this in relamation and it seems that there was little criticism of it. I take that as a good sign. Of course the submission of this is dependant on the repeal of UNR15 but still its out there.

.

Category: Creativity and Education.
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Strength: Mild?

The United Nations.

Recognizing the necessity of nations to protect their history and culture,

Further Recognizing that historical or cultural significance is in many cases determined by national culture and/or political ideology,

Cognizant of the failures of past legislation on the matter,


Do Hereby;

1. Define a site or object of historical or cultural significance as any building, cemetery, battleground, area or other specific location or object whose significance to the nation can be attested to through historical or cultural research;

2. Mandates that each member nation establish a government entity to determine what is and is not a site or object of historical significance;

3. Recommend that any such national government entity be empowered to protect, maintain and promote any site or object determined by that entity to be of historical or cultural significance;

4. Prohibits any foreign nation or entity thereof from imposing their own definitions of historical or cultural significance on the sites or objects belonging to any other nation,






So tell me what you all think. Dont be shy. Im used to the harsh criticism that happens in the GA.

This proposal of yours sounds too much like the new act being made to protect historical sites. Change this so that it protects religous and cultural sites instead of historical, and with a few improvements you will have my vote. For starters, the last artical says that once this national "entity" determines a site to be culturaly significant it will be prohibited for another country to give it their own name or definition. Is that realy nececary? What is that articals pourpose? It probably should be cut. A country is entitled to call a site whatever it wants.

This proposal of yours sounds too much like the new act being made to protect historical sites.

...because ... it IS a new version to protect historic sites?

There's no rule prohibiting two (or twenty) people from having competing proposals on the same subject. It's only when one gets passed into law that contradiction / duplication rules come into play.

In light of the adoption of the motion to repeal UN Resolution #15, Protect Historic Sites, my government would like to announce that it firmly supports the Zyrwickian proposal.

We do have one very minor suggestion to reword "government entity" to "government program", on the grounds that this is a bit more flexible and can be accommodated within pre-existing branches of governments as yet another job function.

Howie T. Katzman

As the representative of Zyrwick stated on Reclamation, this is intended as a blocker -- to prevent any future NSUN legislation on protection of historical sites. As we pointed out there, though, it's an almost completely ineffective blocker. The only thing it would bar the NSUN from doing is establishing a definition of "historical site". The NSUN would still be able to establish specific criteria to be used by nations in making descisions on sites, imposing requirements for protection of designated sites, establishing a UN agency to oversee the efforts, and on and on.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Qallegnia firmly opposes clause 2 of this draft. We feel that the traditional "Problem? Let's make a government program!" approach is not appropriate for all situations, and we do not feel that it is necessary for this one. Could it be changed to "MANDATES that member nations take appropriate steps to protect sites of historical value" or something of that nature?

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

Esteemed Ambassadors,

The People of Proto-Prime would ever so gently like to remind their human colleagues, that cultural and historical heritage is not limited to the human experience. Our People take great interest in Earth affairs which is wonderful and fascinating in its chaotic attempt at order. We applaud the efforts of the two nations who have submitted proposals on this important issue and would only ask that Our observation be taken into consideration.

Love and Spiritual Essence,

The People of Proto-Prime.

I used the Zyrwickian proposal as an outline, but edited profusely. I think Zyrwick made lots of good points, and I tried to incorporate them. Any revisions/suggestions would be appreciated. It's too important a topic to let disappear!

This is Zyrwick's thread about the proposal they are drafting. If you also have a proposal to draft, you should probably make a thread of your own.

Esteemed Jey,

We are not clear on your statement. How many alternative threads would you like to see? Is the aim not to produce a document that will enjoy the widest possible support? If this is a "private" forum then We apologize and will make no further contribution to the discussion.

Love and Spiritual Essence,

The People of Proto-Prime

Esteemed Jey,

We are not clear on your statement. How many alternative threads would you like to see? Is the aim not to produce a document that will enjoy the widest possible support? If this is a "private" forum then We apologize and will make no further contribution to the discussion.

Love and Spiritual Essence,

The People of Proto-Prime

Ok...but Zyrwick began this topic to discuss his proposal, and Audientes then shifts the entire topic over to his draft. That's thread jacking. If Audientes also has a proposal of his own, he shouldn't be using the thread Zyrwick began to draft it. If Zyrwick and Audientes made an agreement to co-draft this proposal within the same thread, that's fine. But, being that Audientes has only 1 post, I hightly doubt that's the case.

Is the aim not to produce a document that will enjoy the widest possible support? Yes, but not by plagiarizing someone else's work in their own thread.
There's no rule prohibiting two (or twenty) people from having competing proposals on the same subject. It's only when one gets passed into law that contradiction / duplication rules come into play.
Given the heat of discussion during the repeal, I fully expect several different proposals to be generated on this topic. As long as each thread represents a single author or group of authors and they don't actively steal from each other, that's fine and normal.

Dragging the thread kicking and screaming back on topic...

1. Ending a proposal with a comma is bad grammar.

2. Clause three is far too weak to ever get my vote, but then you know that.

3. As a blocker this is nearly as useless as the original, but you've already ignored Ausserland about that.

Have fun.

Yes, but not by plagiarizing someone else's work in their own thread.

Given the heat of discussion during the repeal, I fully expect several different proposals to be generated on this topic. As long as each thread represents a single author or group of authors and they don't actively steal from each other, that's fine and normal.

Well put, considering there are many parts of our collegues proposal which bear an uncanny resemblance to The United States of Philimbesi's draft which was posted here and has been since been kicked off the forums.

You mean this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530803)? Go to the User CP and change your Options / Default Thread Age Cut Off to Show All Threads. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Colleagues,

I apologize. I was not aware of Philimbesi's thread due to my thread cut-off setting, which has now been corrected (Thanks for pointing that out Frisbeeteria). Not seeing any other thread discussing the historical sites question, I thought that this thread was where the issue was to be discussed. In addition, I had no intention of plagiarizing anyone else's ideas, or thread-jacking. If I have offended either the delegate from Philimbesi or the delegate from Zyrwick, I am truly sorry.

Cultural Heritage doesn't have a strength.

You mean this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530803)? Go to the User CP and change your Options / Default Thread Age Cut Off to Show All Threads. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I figured it was my fellow delegation members inexperience with the forums, and not a true problem... leave the delegation in the hands of a deputy for one weekend and see what happens.


Javar Parez Deqar
Ambassador - At - Large
The United States of Philimbesi

Opposed. This is fundamentally a blocker, and I'm of the perspective that the UN should be making constructive proposals.

I hesitate to say it (committees being a pet hate of my government), but this is one of those scenarios where I think a committee dedicated to designating suitable sites would be in order. Bluntly, the reason for that is I don't trust governments to act in anyone's interests apart from their own (see my RL example in the repeal thread, and I think someone else also added an example of relevance as well).

With that in mind, I'm inclined to support Audientes effort, and oppose Zyrwick's. Of course, this is a draft thread, and I'd welcome response from Zyrwick either responding to these suggestions, or giving feedback why this suggestion was not acted upon, and thus Hirota's position is not inflexible.

Colleagues,

I apologize. I was not aware of Philimbesi's thread due to my thread cut-off setting, which has now been corrected (Thanks for pointing that out Frisbeeteria). Not seeing any other thread discussing the historical sites question, I thought that this thread was where the issue was to be discussed. In addition, I had no intention of plagiarizing anyone else's ideas, or thread-jacking. If I have offended either the delegate from Philimbesi or the delegate from Zyrwick, I am truly sorry.

Your apology is accepted however not necessary.


Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
The United Sates of Philimbesi

Well I must say that I am pleased with the responses so far. This is the first draft of this having received little help from my region.

We will consider changing the wording, as per Miktivity's suggestion from "government entity" to "government program". That should make it a tad more flexible.

I hesitate to say it (committees being a pet hate of my government), but this is one of those scenarios where I think a committee dedicated to designating suitable sites would be in order.

I would like to assure Hirota that I have considered it. In fact I'm working on that addition. This committee would basically accept and verify nation's designated sites and be used to prevent foreign nations from declaring site/objects in an other nation's CURRENT territory as a site of historical/cultural significance. I too hate committees and think that the UN has far far far too many as it is.

As for the objections stated previously about naming religious buildings. I would say that would fall under the category of culture rather than history and as such would be protected as the Draft consistently uses "Historical or Cultural Significance". Therefore it would be up to the national governmental program to designate the sites be they historical or cultural.

I hope this answers the most significant questions. I will be posting the second draft sometime this evening.

So tell me what you all think. Dont be shy. Im used to the harsh criticism that happens in the GA.

The simple answer is I don't like it. It's better than the pile of manure that happened to rhyme we just repealed, but that doesn' t mean it should be voted on. I don't think we need a blocker here.

1. Define a site or object of historical or cultural significance as any building, cemetery, battleground, area or other specific location or object whose significance to the nation can be attested to through historical or cultural research;

OK so you have made a definition. The definition seems to limit itself to things significant to the nation. If something is significant to the history of a small city or town I guess it's chopped liver?

2. Mandates that each member nation establish a government entity to determine what is and is not a site or object of historical significance;

Oh so you want us all to SPEND MONEY! The only thing worse than yet another useless committee is yet another useless committee I have to raise my taxes to pay for! Besides didn't you already give a solid definition in clause #1?

3. Recommend that any such national government entity be empowered to protect, maintain and promote any site or object determined by that entity to be of historical or cultural significance;

I'm glad that's a reccomend. I do notice a conflict of interest here. To be empowered implies to be funded. The government entity might just start approving sites just in order to get a budget to pay for the goverment employees. Of course since the limits of "empowered" aren't specified I can imagine the Death Star taking out coal plants worldwide in order to prevent some landmark from going underwater due to global warming.

4. Prohibits any foreign nation or entity thereof from imposing their own definitions of historical or cultural significance on the sites or objects belonging to any other nation,

What? You mean they can't go to war? You're very nasty!

<< 2. Mandates that each member nation establish a government entity to determine what is and is not a site or object of historical significance;>>

Ah...so theres the catch. A government must spend it's valuable tax dollars on a UN mandated office that may not even benefit the nation? It seems that this is a gross disregard of the right for a government to mandate and establish it's own offices - it is not the place of the UN to tell a sovereign government that it is necessary to establish said 'government entity.'

- Serge Davko, Chief Ambassador to the UN, Federation of Serekian States

For the benefit of all. I hope that this draft will have answered some of the problems encountered with the first one. However, this is still a work in progress. I am no where yet near ready to submit this to the UN, yet.

Protection of World Heritage.

Category: Creativity and Education.
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage

The United Nations.

Recognizing the necessity of nations to protect their history and culture,

Further Recognizing that historical or cultural significance is in many cases determined by national culture and/or political ideology,

Cognizant of the failures of past legislation on the matter,

Do Hereby;

1. Define a site or object of historical or cultural significance as any building, cemetery, battleground, area or other specific location or object whose significance to the nation can be attested to through historical or cultural research;

2. Defines Territory as the area encompassed by the political boundaries of a nation,

3. Recommends that each member nation establish a government program to determine what is and is not a site or object of historical significance;

4. Recommend that any such national government program be empowered to protect, maintain and promote any site or object determined by that program to be of historical or cultural significance, provided that said object is within their current territory;

5. Prohibits any foreign nation or entity thereof from imposing their own definitions of historical or cultural significance on the sites or objects currently in the territory of an other nation,

6. Establishes the United Nations Council for the Preservation of Sites and Objects of Historical Significance (UNCPSOHS), which shall record sites or objects designated to be of historical or cultural significance by the various member nations, and ensure that no site or object designated by a nation resides in the territory of an other nation.

Ah...so theres the catch. A government must spend it's valuable tax dollars on a UN mandated office that may not even benefit the nation? It seems that this is a gross disregard of the right for a government to mandate and establish it's own offices - it is not the place of the UN to tell a sovereign government that it is necessary to establish said 'government entity.'

- Serge Davko, Chief Ambassador to the UN, Federation of Serekian States

Actually Chief Ambassador Davko, the UN has the right to tell the sovereign governments to do whatever the majority of the UN wants. You might not like it, I know that at times I don't.

Also it is interesting that you would accuse me of wanting to trample National Sovereignty--particularly when I am one of the loudest voices in support of a nation's right to do as it sees fit.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

Ambassador Gramiko, please pardon my poor usage of words. What I meant to imply was that the UN was not in it's place determining that governments must protect historical sites - it is the place of a government to determine if and how they would protect sites of historical value.. While I agree with the intentions of the revised draft - primarily due to the changing of many words and the insertions of more 'recommends' - I would, however, like to point out that not all nations put the same stock in the preservation of historical sites as others, and that some nations are not as devoted to the preservation of others - and to attempt to force them to, as it seems this proposed resolution would do if passed, place emphasis on their history may lead to harmful memories of racial, religious, and socio-economic insensitivity and inequality.

-Serge Davko, Chief Ambassador to the UN, Federation of Serekian States

Chief Ambassador Davko,

As I understand it there are other draft resolutions on the topic. Mine is an attempt at a very sovereignty friendly resolution that will fill the need that, some feel, for legislation such as this. I know of Philimbesi's and an other but I have yet to see a draft thread either here or on Reclamation for it.

However at the end of the day what matters is which draft reaches quorum and is passed first. There can be twenty draft resolutions by twenty different authors, but once one is passed all the other drafts either must wait until the passed resolution is repealed (which seems to be common in cultural heritage legislation) or be scrapped.

Now as to the problems of racial, national-minority, religious, etc insensitivity being "enshrined" as being historically significant is up to the nation with the history.

In pre-revolutionary Zyrwick for example my people the Armenani, were severely oppressed by the Slavic Tsars. Working people generally were almost totally enslaved by the old regime, it was semi-feudal, serfs only being freed some five decades ago. We have preserved some of this history in order to show the following generations from where we came and why the revolution must continue till the full and complete victory of communism.

The definitions are left up to the nations with the site or object, the UNCPSOHS, merely records the site/object and ensures that no nation designates a site outside of its territory. Should a nation decide that a site or object that once was historically significant no longer is they of course may change their designation, and inform the UNCPSOHS of the changes.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador.

Deputy Ambassador Zylovnov, you present a good argument, and I do look favourably upon the protection of historical sites, don't get me wrong. However, I am concerned that the protection of various sites could lead to historical sites being used as propaganda. Perhaps you could include in your draft a unilateral committee that recommends historical locations to a government, as to not allow a government to use history as an instrument of hate?

- Chief Ambassador to the UN, Serge Davko

Deputy Ambassador Zylovnov, you present a good argument, and I do look favourably upon the protection of historical sites, don't get me wrong. However, I am concerned that the protection of various sites could lead to historical sites being used as propaganda. Perhaps you could include in your draft a unilateral committee that recommends historical locations to a government, as to not allow a government to use history as an instrument of hate?

- Chief Ambassador to the UN, Serge Davko


Chief Ambassador Davko,

We will consider it. But I do not think that your amendment t will be added, without compromise, to be quite honest. One man's history is an other man's propaganda after all. Perhaps the UNCPSOHS could draw up general guidelines that nations could but would not be required to use when drafting their definitions.

Maybe something like:

6. Establishes the United Nations Council for the Preservation of Sites and Objects of Historical Significance (UNCPSOHS), which shall record sites or objects designated to be of historical or cultural significance by the various member nations, and ensure that no site or object designated by a nation resides in the territory of an other nation and may suggest general guidelines for designations, that nations might use when designating historical or cultural sites or objects.


The proposed amendment is bold-ed. But it is only proposed, not official yet. It might be in the third draft...it might not.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador

If there are no further objections to the proposal I will be submitting it in 12 hours time.

the Current draft is.

Protection of World Heritage.

Category: Creativity and Education.
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage

The United Nations.

Recognizing the necessity of nations to protect their history and culture,

Further Recognizing that historical or cultural significance is in many cases determined by national culture and/or political ideology,

Cognizant of the failures of past legislation on the matter,

Do Hereby;

1. Define a site or object of historical or cultural significance as any building, cemetery, battleground, area or other specific location or object whose significance to the nation can be attested to through historical or cultural research;

2. Defines Territory as the area encompassed by the political boundaries of a nation,

3. Recommends that each member nation establish a government program to determine what is and is not a site or object of historical significance;

4. Recommend that any such national government program be empowered to protect, maintain and promote any site or object determined by that program to be of historical or cultural significance, provided that said object is within their current territory;

5. Prohibits any foreign nation or entity thereof from imposing their own definitions of historical or cultural significance on the sites or objects currently in the territory of an other nation,

6. Establishes the United Nations Council for the Preservation of Sites and Objects of Historical Significance (UNCPSOHS), which shall record sites or objects designated to be of historical or cultural significance by the various member nations, and ensure that no site or object designated by a nation resides in the territory of an other nation and may suggest general guidelines for designations, that nations might use when designating historical or cultural sites or objects.




Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

Can you please explain to me again why clauses 1 & 5 aren't contradictory?

Richard York
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Section 1 defines what a site of historically significant site is in the eyes of the Resolution and the UN in a general way. It is broad enough to cover anything from a barn to a bell.

Section 5 prohibits nations from designating protected sites inside the territory of foreign nations.

It doesn't get much simpler. As you would have noticed by reading section 3&4 its up to the national governmental program to do the designating, protecting and whatnot. All the UN committee does is write general guidelines and record what sites have been designated to be protected. Perhaps to clear up any confusion...I should add "for the purposes of this legislation" in the first section.

I have submitted for a dry run my proposal. I will not be conducting a telegram campaign now just to see how many persons I can get to support the draft.